TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

I read this, and found it rather interesting. Not sure I have come across another club who have made what they spend so transparent

http://www.evertonfc.com/evertoninterac ... money-goes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brilliant! Every club should do this.

Ridiculous numbers. A business employing so few people should never have a wage bill of that amount. The sooner we introduce a law making it unlawful for the difference between the top earner and the bottom being 1000%, the better. They then either pay the top players £100,000/year, or the tea lady £25,000/week, their choice.

Still, the concept of publishing the numbers in this user friendly manner is excellent and ought to be encouraged. I'd love to see it in L2. Rovers - Spend £1,000,000,000,000,000,000 Finished last. Torquay - Spent 50p Finished 6th etc.

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:Ridiculous numbers. A business employing so few people should never have a wage bill of that amount. The sooner we introduce a law making it unlawful for the difference between the top earner and the bottom being 1000%, the better. They then either pay the top players £100,000/year, or the tea lady £25,000/week, their choice.

Still, the concept of publishing the numbers in this user friendly manner is excellent and ought to be encouraged. I'd love to see it in L2. Rovers - Spend £1,000,000,000,000,000,000 Finished last. Torquay - Spent 50p Finished 6th etc.

Matt.

That idea never even occurred to me! It's very plausible. I always wonderded how a wage cap could be managed effectively, and this seems to be the way to go. Thing is, this kind of thing would have to be introduced from the top of the game, FIFA, so that players don't just jump to a country with more money. However, this would be far too clever for them...

ferrarilover wrote:Ridiculous numbers. A business employing so few people should never have a wage bill of that amount. The sooner we introduce a law making it unlawful for the difference between the top earner and the bottom being 1000%, the better. They then either pay the top players £100,000/year, or the tea lady £25,000/week, their choice.

Still, the concept of publishing the numbers in this user friendly manner is excellent and ought to be encouraged. I'd love to see it in L2. Rovers - Spend £1,000,000,000,000,000,000 Finished last. Torquay - Spent 50p Finished 6th etc.

Matt.

Ok, as long as you also extend that to companies like Tescos where the night stock boy/girl gets minimum wage (£6.08 an hour, I think). Call it £13k a year. In 2010, Justin King, CEO Of sainsbury's, got paid £8M. Which is 614 times that amount, or 61400%

Good luck with that

Haps, this type of scenario is EXACTLY where the doctrine comes from. Bankers mainly.There is no good reason why a desk clerk at a failing bank, who just turns up, does her best, doesn't cause anyone any financial hardship etc gets £15k, but the CEO who is ultimately responsible for Bank X posting a £100,000,000 loss walks away with a £10m salary. It's just not right and this will quash that. The absolute most Mr Fat Cat may earn is 1000% of Miss Desk Clerk. Either pay those at the bottom a massive wedge (which they won't do) or pay the guys at the top a hefty, but not unreasonable salary. There is no one in England who cannot live comfortably on £150,000/year.

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:Haps, this type of scenario is EXACTLY where the doctrine comes from. Bankers mainly.There is no good reason why a desk clerk at a failing bank, who just turns up, does her best, doesn't cause anyone any financial hardship etc gets £15k, but the CEO who is ultimately responsible for Bank X posting a £100,000,000 loss walks away with a £10m salary. It's just not right and this will quash that. The absolute most Mr Fat Cat may earn is 1000% of Miss Desk Clerk. Either pay those at the bottom a massive wedge (which they won't do) or pay the guys at the top a hefty, but not unreasonable salary. There is no one in England who cannot live comfortably on £150,000/year.

Matt.

Like I said. Good luck with that. 1000% of the minimum wage is about £130k a a year. It's all very well saying "There is no one in England who cannot live comfortably on £150,000/year.", but that isn't the point. We live in a capitalist society. A meritocracy of sorts. The idea is that the people who are worth the most get paid the most. Yes, I know that logic falls down in so many ways (how can footballers be worth more than teachers, for example) but you're worth whatever people are prepared to pay for you.

In your scenario, would this be a worldwide salary cap? It'd have to be. Otherwise, people who can only legally earn £150k, say, will easily be hired by foreign companies. It's entirely unenforceable and completely unrealistic to expect it to ever happen. The kind of redistribution of wealth that you seem to be espousing has already been attempted in various countries, and aside from China and Cuba, all of those countries failed miserably; partially because of the corruption that such a system encourages. What's the point of working your balls off to be....oh, I dunno, let's pick a random profession here, say...a lawyer and limiting the money you can earn. You might as well forego the education and on-the-job training and forget it.

What if I finally get around to writing a book and it sells 2 million copies? Should I be limited to a measly £150k simply because the guy who works at the bookbinding factory is unqualified to do anything else? What then, would be my motivation to slog my guts out to write 40,000 words?

I'm aware that bankers especially have come under a lot of scrutiny, and it's probably true that they should not get bonuses when they fail. But hell, most people own part of a bank. If you have a pension, you do. That's where the vast majority of shareholders come from; they have a piece of various companies in the portfolios of the funds their pension is invested in. Public companies cannot give money to it's employees without shareholder support. (which in practice comea via the board of directors; again shareholders have a say in that, too).

Ok, so I know that we're probably not talking about a societal salary cap. You're suggesting more of something that could be used in football. Ok, I can kinda see the appeal. But as I've said, as soon as you do that you'll send players away. Even if FIFA get in on the act it wouldn't be too hard for a renegade league to start up outside their oversight and offer whatever money they want - that is exactly the reason FIFA and UEFA would never sign on, because they - like most bodies, including the police - can only operate with the implicit compliance of their members. (in my police example - if every one of the 65 million people in the UK revolted, there would be nothing that the police could do. Again I'm drifting away from the point)

When it comes down to it, it's like your mother probably told you. Life is unfair. Suck it up. Most of us spend our lives trying to be one of the people that it's unfair to
It's not perfect, but it's the most workable imperfect system in a far from perfect world.

It would just work backwards anyway, if there was to be a £150k salary cap, every player would want it, meaning that higher clubs could reduced their ticket prices greatly and still turn a profit, yet we would need to charge the same, if not more than Premiership clubs. You watch our crowds drop rapidly when daddy can take his son to watch Man Utd cheaply.

I know it won't work in practice, but it's a lovely idea.

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:Ridiculous numbers. A business employing so few people should never have a wage bill of that amount. The sooner we introduce a law making it unlawful for the difference between the top earner and the bottom being 1000%, the better. They then either pay the top players £100,000/year, or the tea lady £25,000/week, their choice.

Still, the concept of publishing the numbers in this user friendly manner is excellent and ought to be encouraged. I'd love to see it in L2. Rovers - Spend £1,000,000,000,000,000,000 Finished last. Torquay - Spent 50p Finished 6th etc.

Matt.

To Quote the Famous Neddy. "There isn't that much money"
To Quote me, We spent that much?

happytorq wrote: Like I said. Good luck with that. 1000% of the minimum wage is about £130k a a year. It's all very well saying "There is no one in England who cannot live comfortably on £150,000/year.", but that isn't the point. We live in a capitalist society. A meritocracy of sorts. The idea is that the people who are worth the most get paid the most. Yes, I know that logic falls down in so many ways (how can footballers be worth more than teachers, for example) but you're worth whatever people are prepared to pay for you.
In your scenario, would this be a worldwide salary cap? It'd have to be. Otherwise, people who can only legally earn £150k, say, will easily be hired by foreign companies. It's entirely unenforceable and completely unrealistic to expect it to ever happen. The kind of redistribution of wealth that you seem to be espousing has already been attempted in various countries, and aside from China and Cuba, all of those countries failed miserably; partially because of the corruption that such a system encourages. What's the point of working your balls off to be....oh, I dunno, let's pick a random profession here, say...a lawyer and limiting the money you can earn. You might as well forego the education and on-the-job training and forget it.

What if I finally get around to writing a book and it sells 2 million copies? Should I be limited to a measly £150k simply because the guy who works at the bookbinding factory is unqualified to do anything else? What then, would be my motivation to slog my guts out to write 40,000 words?

I'm aware that bankers especially have come under a lot of scrutiny, and it's probably true that they should not get bonuses when they fail. But hell, most people own part of a bank. If you have a pension, you do. That's where the vast majority of shareholders come from; they have a piece of various companies in the portfolios of the funds their pension is invested in. Public companies cannot give money to it's employees without shareholder support. (which in practice comea via the board of directors; again shareholders have a say in that, too).

Ok, so I know that we're probably not talking about a societal salary cap. You're suggesting more of something that could be used in football. Ok, I can kinda see the appeal. But as I've said, as soon as you do that you'll send players away. Even if FIFA get in on the act it wouldn't be too hard for a renegade league to start up outside their oversight and offer whatever money they want - that is exactly the reason FIFA and UEFA would never sign on, because they - like most bodies, including the police - can only operate with the implicit compliance of their members. (in my police example - if every one of the 65 million people in the UK revolted, there would be nothing that the police could do. Again I'm drifting away from the point)

When it comes down to it, it's like your mother probably told you. Life is unfair. Suck it up. Most of us spend our lives trying to be one of the people that it's unfair to
It's not perfect, but it's the most workable imperfect system in a far from perfect world.

I am not sure that statement stands up any more either.
How many of us really think that those in the Premiership are worth what they get, it's obscene. Yet they get away with it because those for whom money is king and live the life of greed have the power to dictate. We have no say in what others get. The business plan promoted by John Lewis should be a very good example to all those who say we would lose the cream if we were not allowed to pay what we like. They have a strict formula by which the Chief exec is paid in relation to what the shop floor is paid and they are one of the top shopping companies in the UK.
Shame the Premier league is not run on those lines