Danny Rose

[fortworthspur]

No I don't. What can one have that the other can't? They just enhance their lifestyle they don't jump into the Forbes list or move into super rich bracket on a 30k a week raise.

not that many of them do it, but an extra 8 million pounds invested wisely is a huge difference. I dont like the way Rose handled this at all, but I have no problem with athletes trying to get as big a pay day as possible. the owners certainly are.

 

[Gollorius]

Are you kidding? £30k more a week is around 1.56 million more a year, or £7.8m for a 5 year contract. You don't think that is a massive life change when he'll probably take a significant drop after that?

You're missing the point. You're right, but then there are a lot of us normal folk who still find it galling that people who earn in a week what it takes some of us years to earn complain about their wealth. Yes, market rates...'he's getting it, why shouldn't I' etc etc...but fact remains that the money these players earn is obscene, and they are unlikely to get much sympathy from us cheap little men.

 

[razor1981]

You're missing the point. You're right, but then there are a lot of us normal folk who still find it galling that people who earn in a week what it takes some of us years to earn complain about their wealth. Yes, market rates...'he's getting it, why shouldn't I' etc etc...but fact remains that the money these players earn is obscene, and they are unlikely to get much sympathy from us cheap little men.

Exactly. The average worker in the UK will earn about £1.4million during their entire working life. In the time since he last kicked a ball for Spurs, Danny Rose has earned about £1.8million!

Rose's 'paltry' annual salary of £3.4million is more than the average doctor in the UK will earn during their entire 40+ year career.

The old argument of "oh but it's a short career" no longer applies when players are earning such astronomical sums of money.

I accept that players will look to maximise their earnings, and they have every right to do so, but to go crying to the papers about "only" earning £65k a week, expecting the sympathy of the public is beyond tasteless.

Danny Rose was my favourite player up until a few weeks ago, now I couldn't care less if he leaves - as long as we get a suitable replacement in (obviously).

 

[Hotspurious]

not that many of them do it, but an extra 8 million pounds invested wisely is a huge difference. I dont like the way Rose handled this at all, but I have no problem with athletes trying to get as big a pay day as possible. the owners certainly are.

Well...that's the fallacy with this argument. This is not a market in the economic sense of the word. The owner of Man City is not making a profit...not even trying to. They are taking losses and the money they are paying is beyond what a profit minded business could make in a market. If Man City and others were paying wages and purchasing assets as a profit desiring business would, they would not pay the wages that Danny thinks he's "worth." The labor "market" is distorted. That said, I don't blame Danny from wanting to maximize his income but he is not "worth" what Man City or PSG could pay because they are not constrained by the constraints imposed by profit maximizing behavior. Only a couple of clubs in the world could really justify paying as much as Walker is making for a full back if motivated by profit maximization (or even breaking even) and that would mean they would have purchased someone better than Danny Rose or Kyle Walker.

 

[mightyspur]

You're missing the point. You're right, but then there are a lot of us normal folk who still find it galling that people who earn in a week what it takes some of us years to earn complain about their wealth. Yes, market rates...'he's getting it, why shouldn't I' etc etc...but fact remains that the money these players earn is obscene, and they are unlikely to get much sympathy from us cheap little men.

I'm not sure he was ever complaining about his wealth or on the look out for sympathy.

It always surprises me how footballers are so berated for their earnings, compared to say a movie star. I also find it odd how it's always referred to in a 'per week' basis. You don't hear people saying, oh Tom Cruise, yeah he's on £500k a week. After all he's also in the entertainment industry, and could be argued works significantly less than a footballer playing 90 mins or so every week plus training, travelling and club work. Tom Cruise is also earning that at 55. It's unlikely an ex pro will be anywhere near it after 35.

Back to my original point though, saying earning 30k more a week isn't going to make a difference is nonsense. It's enough to set you and your family up for life

 

[Lemon]

Exactly. The average worker in the UK will earn about £1.4million during their entire working life. In the time since he last kicked a ball for Spurs, Danny Rose has earned about £1.8million!

Rose's 'paltry' annual salary of £3.4million is more than the average doctor in the UK will earn during their entire 40+ year career.

The old argument of "oh but it's a short career" no longer applies when players are earning such astronomical sums of money.

I accept that players will look to maximise their earnings, and they have every right to do so, but to go crying to the papers about "only" earning £65k a week, expecting the sympathy of the public is beyond tasteless.

Danny Rose was my favourite player up until a few weeks ago, now I couldn't care less if he leaves - as long as we get a suitable replacement in (obviously).

Couldn't agree more. Voted him player of the season.

Whining bitch. Do one, Potch can get some other player of his ilk (3-6th choice for their country) and shine them up instead.

On the other hand, I still love Danny and it's the slavery money clubs causing this problem (plus Utd having to keep pace in wage terms).

 

[mightyspur]

Exactly. The average worker in the UK will earn about £1.4million during their entire working life. In the time since he last kicked a ball for Spurs, Danny Rose has earned about £1.8million!

Rose's 'paltry' annual salary of £3.4million is more than the average doctor in the UK will earn during their entire 40+ year career.

The old argument of "oh but it's a short career" no longer applies when players are earning such astronomical sums of money.

I accept that players will look to maximise their earnings, and they have every right to do so, but to go crying to the papers about "only" earning £65k a week, expecting the sympathy of the public is beyond tasteless.

Danny Rose was my favourite player up until a few weeks ago, now I couldn't care less if he leaves - as long as we get a suitable replacement in (obviously).

Why are you comparing what a top level pro earns in the entertainment industry with your "average worker" it's a pointless comparison.

 

[fortworthspur]

Well...that's the fallacy with this argument. This is not a market in the economic sense of the word. The owner of Man City is not making a profit...not even trying to. They are taking losses and the money they are paying is beyond what a profit minded business could make in a market. If Man City and others were paying wages and purchasing assets as a profit desiring business would, they would not pay the wages that Danny thinks he's "worth." The labor "market" is distorted. That said, I don't blame Danny from wanting to maximize his income but he is not "worth" what Man City or PSG could pay because they are not constrained by the constraints imposed by profit maximizing behavior. Only a couple of clubs in the world could really justify paying as much as Walker is making for a full back if motivated by profit maximization (or even breaking even) and that would mean they would have purchased someone better than Danny Rose or Kyle Walker.

You cant hold up Man City as the norm - they are the exception. The amount of TV money that has been infused to the prem and champions league in the last decade is staggering. I dont blame the players for trying to get a piece of that. As far as profit, what was Levy's investment into Spurs? ENIC bought 52% of the club from Sugar for 21 million. They later bought out more but the total investment by Levy is maybe 20 million? As he owns 30% of ENIC his share of Spurs is worth 256 million dollars if the club is really worth a billion dollars.

 

[Ossie'sAardvark]

I could on the other hand just feel jilted and bitter, cause I expected so much better from the boy.

 

[Hotspurious]

You cant hold up Man City as the norm - they are the exception. The amount of TV money that has been infused to the prem and champions league in the last decade is staggering. I dont blame the players for trying to get a piece of that. As far as profit, what was Levy's investment into Spurs? ENIC bought 52% of the club from Sugar for 21 million. They later bought out more but the total investment by Levy is maybe 20 million? As he owns 30% of ENIC his share of Spurs is worth 256 million dollars if the club is really worth a billion dollars.

"Purcell said only five clubs made an economic profit in 2015/16, the worst performance since 2012/13, with Chelsea and Manchester City accounting for more than half of the league's total losses over the report's eight-year period." https://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/pl-clubs-going-bankrupt/85719

 

[Spurs Lodge Kittens]

Probably been said, but we really can't allow Rose to go. If we sell him then it shows everyone else how they can manipulate and force a move.

Hell, I'd make an example of him and refuse to sell until the at least another summer window has passed. His recent contract tied him to us for five years. Needs to suck it up

 

[fortworthspur]

"Purcell said only five clubs made an economic profit in 2015/16, the worst performance since 2012/13, with Chelsea and Manchester City accounting for more than half of the league's total losses over the report's eight-year period." https://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/pl-clubs-going-bankrupt/85719

"This stark warning runs counter to most recent analyses of the Premier League's financial health, with many experts pointing to restrictions on excessive spending introduced after Portsmouth's collapse in 2012 and the gravity-defying rise in broadcast revenues."

"Based on the principle of "economic profit" - the difference between revenue and costs, including the so-called "opportunity of cost" of not doing something else with your money – the report claims Premier League clubs lost £2billion in eight years."

the bolded part is significant. they factored in lost investment money into the loss, which is completely disingenuous. and they dont consider growth in value either. like I said, Spurs have a minimal profit every year but the clubs value has increased 10-fold.

and just using intuition - do you really believe all these owners who understand business and money much better than us are "hurtling towards bankruptcy"?

 

[Hotspurious]

"This stark warning runs counter to most recent analyses of the Premier League's financial health, with many experts pointing to restrictions on excessive spending introduced after Portsmouth's collapse in 2012 and the gravity-defying rise in broadcast revenues."

"Based on the principle of "economic profit" - the difference between revenue and costs, including the so-called "opportunity of cost" of not doing something else with your money – the report claims Premier League clubs lost £2billion in eight years."

the bolded part is significant. they factored in lost investment money into the loss, which is completely disingenuous. and they dont consider growth in value either. like I said, Spurs have a minimal profit every year but the clubs value has increased 10-fold.

and just using intuition - do you really believe all these owners who understand business and money much better than us are "hurtling towards bankruptcy"?

That's the thing...I don't think most of these owners (who may or may not "know more about business and money" than we do) care about running it as a business...that the whole point. If they were interested in making money with this chunk of their money, they wouldn't buy football clubs. These are prestige assets for the wealthy to show off. Thus, the clubs in question (that could pay Danny "what he is worth") aren't trying to make money...they are just trying to win and show off.

 

[double0]

We need to get Danny Rose on side and firing down the left side of our team asap

 

[fortworthspur]

That's the thing...I don't think most of these owners (who may or may not "know more about business and money" than we do) care about running it as a business...that the whole point. If they were interested in making money with this chunk of their money, they wouldn't buy football clubs. These are prestige assets for the wealthy to show off. Thus, the clubs in question (that could pay Danny "what he is worth") aren't trying to make money...they are just trying to win and show off.

chelsea and city are like that, but in the end those guys will probably still make a net profit when they sell because the value of clubs has skyrocketed.

whatever the motive of the individual owners, football is big big business and there is a shit-ton of money in it. since the product is dependent on the players I have no problem with them trying to maximize their salaries. Who here wouldnt like to earn more money? If someone can say he honestly would refuse a pay raise Id be surprised. Rose's sin wasnt wanting more money, it was being a total douchebag about it.

 

[Gollorius]

You're missing the point. You're right, but then there are a lot of us normal folk who still find it galling that people who earn in a week what it takes some of us years to earn complain about their wealth. Yes, market rates...'he's getting it, why shouldn't I' etc etc...but fact remains that the money these players earn is obscene, and they are unlikely to get much sympathy from us cheap little men.

I'm not sure he was ever complaining about his wealth or on the look out for sympathy.

It always surprises me how footballers are so berated for their earnings, compared to say a movie star. I also find it odd how it's always referred to in a 'per week' basis. You don't hear people saying, oh Tom Cruise, yeah he's on £500k a week. After all he's also in the entertainment industry, and could be argued works significantly less than a footballer playing 90 mins or so every week plus training, travelling and club work. Tom Cruise is also earning that at 55. It's unlikely an ex pro will be anywhere near it after 35.

Back to my original point though, saying earning 30k more a week isn't going to make a difference is nonsense. It's enough to set you and your family up for life

For sure, context is important. And in this context, we aren't paying what he could get elsewhere, so I'd do the same. Except for 1. Speak about it in public 2. Give an exclusive to that fucking rag.

How is "I'm not getting what I'm worth" not complaining? Give over.

 

[spursfan77]

We need to get Danny Rose on side and firing down the left side of our team asap

100%

Losing him doesn't bare thinking about. He's such an important player for us. After Kane, Eriksen and alderweireld, I'd say Rose is the next most important player in the team.

 

[double0]

100%

Losing him doesn't bare thinking about. He's such an important player for us. After Kane, Eriksen and alderweireld, I'd say Rose is the next most important player in the team.

I reckon you missed Alli in that list

 

[mightyspur]

For sure, context is important. And in this context, we aren't paying what he could get elsewhere, so I'd do the same. Except for 1. Speak about it in public 2. Give an exclusive to that fucking rag.

How is "I'm not getting what I'm worth" not complaining? Give over.

I never said he wasn't complaining. I said he wasn't complaining about his wealth. He didn't say, "I don't have enough money".

 

[spursfan77]

I reckon you missed Alli in that list

5. Dele