General Football Banter

The only reason I think he deserves it is because realistically footballers get paid what they deserve. Football as a business makes so much money that it's only fair footballers take such a large slice of the pie since they're the ones doing it all. A player who is big a draw like Rooney deserves a nice slice.

I don't think this same thing applies to Jabroni players at shithouse teams though, Spurs must be paying idiots like Soldado at least 100k a week (I'm not saying Spurs are a shithouse team btw).

Last edited by H Sticks (Thu-27-Feb-2014 20:05:42)

I don't mind that he's being paid whatever, I agree that footballers deserve the big money because the business runs on them. They get that much because that's how much money the industry makes, what else are they supposed to do with it? He could be paid £500,000 a week for all I care, it means nothing. I just don't think he's on the level of other players on a comparable wage.

I don't mind that he's being paid whatever, I agree that footballers deserve the big money because the business runs on them. They get that much because that's how much money the industry makes, what else are they supposed to do with it? He could be paid £500,000 a week for all I care, it means nothing. I just don't think he's on the level of other players on a comparable wage.

The highest payed players are hardly the best, I remember when they released a list of the highest played players when Rooney last signed the contract he was 3rd behind Ibrahimovic ad Eto'o. Ronaldo and Messi were behind guys like Yaya Toure, Eto'o, Aguero and some guy called Alex Witsel. They probably make way more in endorsements though, who would wanna endorse Rooney's fat arse?

Axel Witsel is a good player.  I'd love to see him in the Premier League. He'd suit Arsenal too niw that I think about it. 😄

I don't mind that he's being paid whatever, I agree that footballers deserve the big money because the business runs on them. They get that much because that's how much money the industry makes, what else are they supposed to do with it? He could be paid £500,000 a week for all I care, it means nothing. I just don't think he's on the level of other players on a comparable wage.

The highest payed players are hardly the best, I remember when they released a list of the highest played players when Rooney last signed the contract he was 3rd behind Ibrahimovic ad Eto'o. Ronaldo and Messi were behind guys like Yaya Toure, Eto'o, Aguero and some guy called Alex Witsel. They probably make way more in endorsements though, who would wanna endorse Rooney's fat arse?

There's some discrepancy, sure. But as a general rule the better you are the better money you get. Not sure about Eto'o, but Touré and Aguero both deserve their money!

There's some discrepancy, sure. But as a general rule the better you are the better money you get. Not sure about Eto'o, but Touré and Aguero both deserve their money!

They're both overrated! Only oil baron teams would pay those 2 that much.

#shotsfired

So yeah, you might as well put Arsenal's name on the FA Cup already.

Eesh. Knocked out of two cups in the span of four days. Should probably say that it's a good thing because now we can focus on the league, but sheeit. I wanted four trophies!

Man city are finding out, the same as chelsea have, that u can buy temporary trophies but u cant buy permanent class.

Man City are such underachievers, to spend to much money and only have 4 trophies to show for it is a joke.

I really wanted Arsenal to do well. Its a shame but they fave it a go. Man City? Meh. Obe team winning all the trophies is boring I'm glad they're out.

I really wanted Arsenal to do well. Its a shame but they fave it a go. Man City? Meh. Obe team winning all the trophies is boring I'm glad they're out.

Man City ain't gonna be winning all of the trophies anytime soon, son.

Man city are finding out, the same as chelsea have, that u can buy temporary trophies but u cant buy permanent class.

We've earned trophies, earned the status as the best and now, we have a dynasty to match the greatest periods in most football club's respective histories. Come back to the argument when you can win more than a League Cup or 4th place. 😉

Man city are finding out, the same as chelsea have, that u can buy temporary trophies but u cant buy permanent class.

We've earned trophies, earned the status as the best and now, we have a dynasty to match the greatest periods in most football club's respective histories. Come back to the argument when you can win more than a League Cup or 4th place. 😉

Chelsea have absolutely no class. If they disappeared no one would care, except the 17000 core fans who followed you down to the lower divisions. Liverpool and united would be missed, but no one cares about the plastic club.

Im sure spurs would win trophies if we were bank rolled by a russian with dirty money, but Im pleased we're not. Supporting spurs is really painful, but its a real club with real history that was earnt. Chelsea wouldnt even be in existence if the russian hadnt bought your club as his new toy... good luck after he goes 😉

Man city are finding out, the same as chelsea have, that u can buy temporary trophies but u cant buy permanent class.

We've earned trophies, earned the status as the best and now, we have a dynasty to match the greatest periods in most football club's respective histories. Come back to the argument when you can win more than a League Cup or 4th place. 😉

What dynasty? Chelsea's legacy is that of wannabe's who got lucky with Russian oil money, that's all people will remember about Chelsea.

Chelsea haven't earned shit tbh, it was Chelsea who distorted the transfer market the first time and came in with these slimy tactics in the transfer market, they continuously hi jack other teams transfers cos they know no one else can match them. Also, as a team their owner is way more important tan the manager which I think is not right, Di Matteo won 2 trophies ffs. Not to mention Mourinho is a prick.

However, I disagree with Hilds original statement. I think Chelsea managed their lottery win way better than Man City have, they got a good manager in Mourinho who built a strong spine and squad who went on to be the second most dominant English team for the last 10 years. I think if you compare Chelsea's first 5 years after Roman to City's after Arabs you'll see a difference.

However, I disagree with Hilds original statement. I think Chelsea managed their lottery win way better than Man City have, they got a good manager in Mourinho who built a strong spine and squad who went on to be the second most dominant English team for the last 10 years. I think if you compare Chelsea's first 5 years after Roman to City's after Arabs you'll see a difference.

My initial post was about chelsea and city not being able to buy class. I agree that chelsea managed it better, but i think that was because they were the first to do it.

Doesnt change the fact they are a plastic toy of a club. No one will ever remember them the way united of '99 are remembered, or the unbeatable (grr) arse side, or the last 6 years of barca.

Everyone just looks at chelsea and city and knows macclesfield would be in their position if the russian or arab had gone there instead. Neither side earnt a thing, they just got lucky.

Will be very interesting when either of those owners leaves...

Shocker: Good footballers cost money. Who knew?

Obviously getting massive funding helped Chelsea and City. What's the problem? Other than jealousy, why would anyone possibly give a shit? Why would fans of any other club be so butthurt over City's lack of "permanent class"? Surely that's for us to be bitter about. But we're not, we're too busy enjoying our nice, shiny league cup 😄

If oil barons bring the world's best players to the English league, I welcome them. Football has been a business for decades now, home town pride hasn't been a factor since long before we were alive. Before the money, Chelsea were doing better than City. Why? Because Chelsea had more money than City. It's no mystery. United have been on top for 20 years because they've been loaded for 20 years. If there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that it's nice to see how far they've fallen since they had a bit of competition.

I dont care about the money I just find it boring when one team wins everything.  It was a breath of fresh air when City won the PL but I like healthy competition and would love a Liverpool or Arsenal  to win the PL. Makes things more exciting and less predictable. This season has been the closest PL I can remember in years.

The united side were top for 20 years because they brought thru a great crop of youngsters, and added talent to them. They could afford this because they build a 70,000 seater stadium and sell it out.

Arse can now buy the worlds top players because they have a 60,000 seater stadium and sell it out.

I dont have a problem with either of these because they are building the 'right' way (obviously i have rivalry issues with arse, but thats a seperate matter)

Spurs, generally, buy cheap and sell high and so we dont have a debt.

Football is a business, but its also a sport. I have no problem with clubs building stadiums and dynasties. I dont like it when someone comes in and completely moves the goalposts, which is what chelsea and city have done.

Neither club needs fans. If they played in front of only their owner each week it wouldnt matter. Real clubs need their fans. Real clubs need to sell merchandise to survive. Real clubs need to seel membership subscriptions. City and chelsea dont need any of those things. They just need to keep tge owner happy.

Its not jealousy. The russion was going to buy spurs but we turned him down, and im honestly happy about that. What that shows is just how much he wanted chelsea...

Like i said, if the arab or the russion had decided to buy macclesfield then they would be where u are now. The great liverpool sides of tge 70's and 80's and the fantastic united sides of the 90s and 00s could never have happened to shrewsbury or chesterfield.

Im pleased chuckles and umty are enjoying the ride, because when the only important person at your club gets bored and leaves (the russion is already talking about leaving and going into politics) then that will be the end. The wages will cripple your club, the costs and expense and you'll both fall faster and further than leeds. That day will be a happy one for real clubs everywhere.

I hope we adopt the german model of ownership.

Ok, I'm not arguing any of that. I just don't know why it's important. Maybe as fans of the clubs in question we should be cautious about what happens if they leave, but why is it any concern of anyone else? Why does it matter to a Spurs fan that Chelsea doesn't need fans? I'm not saying it is a jealousy thing, but I can't think of any other reasons why a fan of a relatively successful club would be angry about other clubs doing things a different way. No one has moved any goalposts. There's no right and wrong way of doing things. People can buy football clubs, it happens. If they bought Macclesfield instead, good for them. Spurs turned the offer down? Great, enjoy the moral high ground.

Maybe I'm weird, but as a City fan I find it impossible to care at all about the finances of other clubs. Hell, I couldn't care much less about the finances of my own. The business side isn't why I'm a fan, the sport is. And anything that gives me a high quality of sport to watch, I'm all in favour of. I'd love for 15 more billionaires to buy up Premier League teams, it would only make things better.

It's definitely a degree of jealousy with me, more so to Chelsea than Man City. Arsenal were the number 1 team in town until Russians rolled up and took Ashley Cole. Plus there's a correlation between the Chelsea rise and the Arsenal decline, not to mention so many Chelsea fans started popping up even though I met 1 or 2 before Chelsea got brought.

Chux you need to stop denying that Chelsea and City having money doesn't matter to fans of other teams, it obviously does, maybe not to the teams who have to compete with them. Chelsea creep up and swipe players off other teams because they pay big, you can't deny it's unfair. Football teams should be self sustaining not have someone buying their way in.

I think Hilds is dreaming when he says the owners will fuck off, I doubt either of them will in our lifetimes, they'll probably have it through generations. Chelsea are one of the biggest teams in the world now, I think they can sustain themselves although they'd need a new stadium and lesser the wages, City couldn't handle it though. That's just pipe dreams anyway.

Regardless, I always think they're beatable teams, Ferguson did it. Chelsea under Mourinho is a beast, they could dominate like Fergie at United. Also City are erratic. Arsenal have all the tools to compete with them, I dunno if Wenger has it in him though. Liverpool are in a good position, they need to keep Suarez and have a year or two to gel and they can compete too. I think the Premier League has to potential to stay competitive for a few years.

If there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that it's nice to see how far they've fallen since they had a bit of competition.

Hear, hear.

Chux you need to stop denying that Chelsea and City having money doesn't matter to fans of other teams, it obviously does, maybe not to the teams who have to compete with them. Chelsea creep up and swipe players off other teams because they pay big, you can't deny it's unfair. Football teams should be self sustaining not have someone buying their way in.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter to other fans, I'm saying I don't understand why it does.

The best players go to the best teams for the best money. I don't see a problem with it. If Real Madrid didn't buy Bale, Barcelona or Bayern Munich would have. It's not swiping, it's career progression. Yeah, the poor clubs don't get the benefits, the same way it's been forever.

And anyway, look at what Chelsea and City have actually achieved since they got money. It's really not that much. They're much better off now than they were, but they haven't done any more than United have. Ferguson has gone and United are failing, but Chelsea and City aren't doing considerably better than Arsenal and Liverpool. Rich owners are one way, but not the only way. It does still come down to teamwork and great individuals becoming a unit. I've seen more than enough examples of City not being as good as they should be to know that. You can buy your way into the top six, but you need to be worthy to win the league.

I wouldn't mind so much, but sometimes the money is thrown around too much. Why spend £20m on a player to barely make the bench? We've seen it happen a few times with City and Chelsea. There's no career progression with a few players, it's just beating other teams to them by offering ridiculous wages and then that player turns to crap because they never play.

The wage thing really is ridiculous as well. To move to another club after being left in the reserves, they're either going to have to take a massive pay cut (which most players won't do), or the buying team has to pay them a lot more in wages than they would have done if City or Chelsea hadn't signed them in the first place. Granted, some players will do for personal reasons like trying to move home - you're not going to get that wish without dropping your wage.

My problem with it is that it's damaging to smaller clubs. When Man Utd were dominating in the 90's and 00's teams could compete with them to a degree - you had Arsenal, Newcastle, Chelsea, Blackburn, Villa, Liverpool, etc. It was great. Teams could compete with just a little investment.

Now though, to win the league you basically need a ridiculous amount of money because if you invest in your squad, Chelsea and City will go out and splash the cash too. Even if they don't, teams can't afford the wages to get players of that class in without the threat of doing a Leeds.

One of the reasons I kinda liked Man Utd was because they built themselves up. They spent some money later on, but to get to where they are, they used home grown talent and some good cheap buys, then strengthened when at the top to stay there, as other teams were spending to compete. That's how it should be done and is great. Same with Arsenal - don't like Wenger, but he built one hell of a team and had them playing brilliantly without splashing any money about. That's an exciting way to do it I reckon and is more fair on the smaller teams.

I say it'd more fair on them because they can compete if it's done right. You can almost pick the top 6-7 every season, and that's who get's the European places and the more money. All are teams who can spend. If a team can't get there, then they can't get the money to attract the players they'd need to stay there and that just keeps the best players at the top clubs.

Newcastle are a great example of this. 2 years ago we almost had a Champions League spot. But we didn't have the squad to sustain it and trailed off towards the end and barely got a European place. Then squad depth comes into it as you can't afford the first time to get a big enough team - some teams can, but some can't. As we can't get into that bracket without massively overspending, we end up losing our best players like Cabaye. When that happens, there's less of a chance of getting there. When a team like City or Chelsea lose a player though, it doesn't matter as they basically have 2 first team squads or can afford to go and spend £30m on a new player to warm the bench.