£200 million pounds for a player - discuss.

I gave up on football a long time back, my only real interest is BWFC, the club of the town I was born and raised and have followed in one way or another all my life.

I simply can't understand why anyone would want to pay £200 million for someone to kick a ball about?

But that is now reality and I guess other crazy transfers will follow in due time.

I read somewhere (I don't know how true it is) that Neymar will be paid £450,000 per week (after tax).

PSG who have bought him is owned by the mega-rich Qatar royal family - and Qatar is sort of the black sheep of the Arab world at the moment (they have the World Cup coming up in 5 years remember - thank you Mr Blatter) so I guess it is their way of sticking two fingers up to the Arab states who currently don't like them.

Sad that the money isn't best used feeding the starving - but who cares about them when we have football to watch.

Anybody got any views on all of this?

It's mental. But it's mental at all levels. Clearly several of the Bolton squad are on mega wages despite, in the main, being average at best.

Neymar is obviously a good player, but for £200m you'd want the best player in the world - and he's not in the same league as Ronaldo or Messi, or even Philippe Coutinho or Alexis Sanchez in my opinion.

It's actually pretty shameful that one person can get paid in the region of £500k per week just for kicking a ball, when there are people around the world who can't even get clean drinking water.

But we, the fans, are as much to blame as anyone. If we didn't go to the games, buy the shirts (under 12s only) or buy the TV packages players like Neymar would be regular people earning a regular wage.

How long before a player is bought for a billion pound. It's ridiculous.

Its pocket change to sheik ya booty ...... 

The problem is that whoever owns clubs can spend as much as they want on the team. A Salary Cap would make things fairer but life isn't fair. The Qatar crowd could buy BWFC and all associated for less money than they pay for expensive dinners in a year.
It would be interesting to see if one day the Arabs lose interest in their football toy Man City for some reason.  how would the salaries be paid.
Neymar should laugh all the way to the bank.

It was inevitable so I don't see a problem. Players are worth what clubs are willing to pay for them - provided that they comply with the FFP rules which PSG do because they have loads of money.

A club spokesman said it made business sense but being paid half a mill a week they are going to have to sell a helluva lot of shirts.

For me its the death of fair competition, (has been for a while) the elite clubs cherry pick the best kids and never play them, buy the best players for ridiculous money. Pay unsustainable wages whilst all the rest in the football pyramid fight for the scraps running at a loss with no hope of ever winning anything.

If the cash was fairly distributed then the game would be much healthier, however that won't happen because cash is all that matters, so we will head to a elite league of megga rich clubs. sad really.

I agree with Nat the fans are the only ones who could effect this but if your dining at the top table your not really bothered about the rest.

wessy wrote:For me its the death of fair competition, (has been for a while) the elite clubs cherry pick the best kids and never play them, buy the best players for ridiculous money. Pay unsustainable wages whilst all the rest in the football pyramid fight for the scraps running at a loss with no hope of ever winning anything.

If the cash was fairly distributed then the game would be much healthier, however that won't happen because cash is all that matters, so we will head to a elite league of megga rich clubs. sad really.

I agree with Nat the fans are the only ones who could effect this but if your dining at the top table your not really bothered about the rest.

Spot on Wessy, and its getting worse. Having said that, I believe clubs pay a percentage of what they think the player will bring in to the club. The bigger the club, the more each player is worth, on a corporate level. Getting the combination right. of income and playing ability doesn't always work though, as we've all seen, at all levels.

wessy wrote:For me its the death of fair competition, (has been for a while) the elite clubs cherry pick the best kids and never play them, buy the best players for ridiculous money. Pay unsustainable wages whilst all the rest in the football pyramid fight for the scraps running at a loss with no hope of ever winning anything.

If the cash was fairly distributed then the game would be much healthier, however that won't happen because cash is all that matters, so we will head to a elite league of megga rich clubs. sad really.

I agree with Nat the fans are the only ones who could effect this but if your dining at the top table your not really bothered about the rest.

I understand what you're saying, but we live in a competitive capitalist society which isn't fair by nature and it can be argued that the "elite" clubs are in that position because they have run their businesses better than the rest, and have gone on to consolidate their positions - which any capitalist would do.
Fight your way to the top of the pile and then put in place measures to make sure you stay there. That's capitalism. 

Competition isn't "fair" anyway.
It's like when they got rid of competitiveness in schools because it wasn't "fair" that some kids were bigger/fitter/stronger/more skilful/committed than others - when finding out which is the best is the point of competition anyway.

As regards "redistributing the cash" that could also be considered as unfair as the clubs at the top have earned it so why should they have to cough up to subsidise clubs like BWFC who have crashed and burned as a result of years of mismanagement? 

Nobody was complaining when we were getting into Europe by spending money like it was going out of fashion so it's a bit rich to start now.

That said, I do object to signing up 100's of kids whilst they are practically still in the womb so nobody else gets a look in.

wanderlust wrote:

wessy wrote:For me its the death of fair competition, (has been for a while) the elite clubs cherry pick the best kids and never play them, buy the best players for ridiculous money. Pay unsustainable wages whilst all the rest in the football pyramid fight for the scraps running at a loss with no hope of ever winning anything.

If the cash was fairly distributed then the game would be much healthier, however that won't happen because cash is all that matters, so we will head to a elite league of megga rich clubs. sad really.

I agree with Nat the fans are the only ones who could effect this but if your dining at the top table your not really bothered about the rest.

I understand what you're saying, but we live in a competitive capitalist society which isn't fair by nature and it can be argued that the "elite" clubs are in that position because they have run their businesses better than the rest, and have gone on to consolidate their positions - which any capitalist would do.
Fight your way to the top of the pile and then put in place measures to make sure you stay there. That's capitalism. 

Competition isn't "fair" anyway.
It's like when they got rid of competitiveness in schools because it wasn't "fair" that some kids were bigger/fitter/stronger/more skilful/committed than others - when finding out which is the best is the point of competition anyway.

As regards "redistributing the cash" that could also be considered as unfair as the clubs at the top have earned it so why should they have to cough up to subsidise clubs like BWFC who have crashed and burned as a result of years of mismanagement? 

Nobody was complaining when we were getting into Europe by spending money like it was going out of fashion so it's a bit rich to start now.

That said, I do object to signing up 100's of kids whilst they are practically still in the womb so nobody else gets a look in.

Utter rubbish.

PSG aren't at the top table because they've run their club better than other clubs, it isn't because they are a great business - it's simply because their 'new' owners are the absurdly rich Qatar royal family and are simply making a political statement (through the medium of football) to their Arab neighbours who don't have much time for them recently.

The world transfer market has jumped from Pogba's £89 million in 2016 to more than double to £198 million for Neymar,

To put that into some sort of context it took eight years to raise the world transfer fee from £80 million for Ronaldo (2009) via Bale (£86 million 2013) - to Pogba last year - eight years to raise it just 9 million.

The Neymar deal leapt it up a staggering £109 million more in just one go!

Nothing at all to do with business and everything to do with making a political statement from one petro-dollar rich Arab royal family to others.

That does it ! I'm not buying any more fuel ! (how far can you get on a bus pass ?    )

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

wessy wrote:For me its the death of fair competition, (has been for a while) the elite clubs cherry pick the best kids and never play them, buy the best players for ridiculous money. Pay unsustainable wages whilst all the rest in the football pyramid fight for the scraps running at a loss with no hope of ever winning anything.

If the cash was fairly distributed then the game would be much healthier, however that won't happen because cash is all that matters, so we will head to a elite league of megga rich clubs. sad really.

I agree with Nat the fans are the only ones who could effect this but if your dining at the top table your not really bothered about the rest.

I understand what you're saying, but we live in a competitive capitalist society which isn't fair by nature and it can be argued that the "elite" clubs are in that position because they have run their businesses better than the rest, and have gone on to consolidate their positions - which any capitalist would do.
Fight your way to the top of the pile and then put in place measures to make sure you stay there. That's capitalism. 

Competition isn't "fair" anyway.
It's like when they got rid of competitiveness in schools because it wasn't "fair" that some kids were bigger/fitter/stronger/more skilful/committed than others - when finding out which is the best is the point of competition anyway.

As regards "redistributing the cash" that could also be considered as unfair as the clubs at the top have earned it so why should they have to cough up to subsidise clubs like BWFC who have crashed and burned as a result of years of mismanagement? 

Nobody was complaining when we were getting into Europe by spending money like it was going out of fashion so it's a bit rich to start now.

That said, I do object to signing up 100's of kids whilst they are practically still in the womb so nobody else gets a look in.

Utter rubbish.

PSG aren't at the top table because they've run their club better than other clubs, it isn't because they are a great business - it's simply because their 'new' owners are the absurdly rich Qatar royal family and are simply making a political statement (through the medium of football) to their Arab neighbours who don't have much time for them recently.

The world transfer market has jumped from Pogba's £89 million in 2016 to more than double to £198 million for Neymar,

To put that into some sort of context it took eight years to raise the world transfer fee from £80 million for Ronaldo (2009) via Bale (£86 million 2013) - to Pogba last year - eight years to raise it just 9 million.

The Neymar deal leapt it up a staggering £109 million more in just one go!

Nothing at all to do with business and everything to do with making a political statement from one petro-dollar rich Arab royal family to others.

So PSG's Board of Directors had nothing to do with bringing in the Al Thani's and presenting them with an attractive investment proposition?

The leagues have to change or we are all done for IMO.

Right now there are only half a dozen teams that will ever win anything in England...not counting the oddball such as a Leicester.
I have no interest in a super league or whatever they want to call it.
 
Until a system similar to American Football/Baseball is put in whereby each region has one or two teams....all with the same salary caps and fan base to draw on. Never going to happen in my lifetime so nowt is going change. So in 50 years from now how many little town teams will there be left. So the laws of economics will kick in eventually....little teams will not be able to cover their expenses and go out.....we were 10 minutes away from it ourselves.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

wessy wrote:For me its the death of fair competition, (has been for a while) the elite clubs cherry pick the best kids and never play them, buy the best players for ridiculous money. Pay unsustainable wages whilst all the rest in the football pyramid fight for the scraps running at a loss with no hope of ever winning anything.

If the cash was fairly distributed then the game would be much healthier, however that won't happen because cash is all that matters, so we will head to a elite league of megga rich clubs. sad really.

I agree with Nat the fans are the only ones who could effect this but if your dining at the top table your not really bothered about the rest.

I understand what you're saying, but we live in a competitive capitalist society which isn't fair by nature and it can be argued that the "elite" clubs are in that position because they have run their businesses better than the rest, and have gone on to consolidate their positions - which any capitalist would do.
Fight your way to the top of the pile and then put in place measures to make sure you stay there. That's capitalism. 

Competition isn't "fair" anyway.
It's like when they got rid of competitiveness in schools because it wasn't "fair" that some kids were bigger/fitter/stronger/more skilful/committed than others - when finding out which is the best is the point of competition anyway.

As regards "redistributing the cash" that could also be considered as unfair as the clubs at the top have earned it so why should they have to cough up to subsidise clubs like BWFC who have crashed and burned as a result of years of mismanagement? 

Nobody was complaining when we were getting into Europe by spending money like it was going out of fashion so it's a bit rich to start now.

That said, I do object to signing up 100's of kids whilst they are practically still in the womb so nobody else gets a look in.

Utter rubbish.

PSG aren't at the top table because they've run their club better than other clubs, it isn't because they are a great business - it's simply because their 'new' owners are the absurdly rich Qatar royal family and are simply making a political statement (through the medium of football) to their Arab neighbours who don't have much time for them recently.

The world transfer market has jumped from Pogba's £89 million in 2016 to more than double to £198 million for Neymar,

To put that into some sort of context it took eight years to raise the world transfer fee from £80 million for Ronaldo (2009) via Bale (£86 million 2013) - to Pogba last year - eight years to raise it just 9 million.

The Neymar deal leapt it up a staggering £109 million more in just one go!

Nothing at all to do with business and everything to do with making a political statement from one petro-dollar rich Arab royal family to others.

So PSG's Board of Directors had nothing to do with bringing in the Al Thani's and presenting them with an attractive investment proposition?

When you are the Qatar royal family YOU choose which club you want to buy and how much you will pump into it - not (as you are trying to suggest) the other way around!

Money talks.

And they have absolutely tons of it.