What's new

Salaries at Spurs

JuanRebelde

Member
Apr 10, 2006
978
2
They go to Chelsea or Liverpool because they can get trophies AND money.

Given the (hyperthetical) choice between trophies OR money, imo they'd choose the £80k weekly wage (and therefore a club like west ham) rather than winning trophies on £15-£20k a week.

That is a false analogy as the difference in wages like that is extremely rare. 60-65K pw difference between wage offers and undermines what you're saying. Take mercenary Lucas Neil 35K liverpool with the promise of a rise on performance criteria and 60k Spammers. Even the wage offers at Spurs and Spam were closer for Bent.
 

JuanRebelde

Member
Apr 10, 2006
978
2
:violin:
Yeah and I just want a wife who can cook and clean, but not look like Scarlett Johannsen too!



A top 4 football player is anyone who when he comes on the market, us spurs fans go, well he will never come to us, Valencia/Barcelona/other top 4 clubs in the Europeanleagues, will get him.

Simple enough. And I want spurs to be one of these clubs more than anything.

Ahh, like Klinsmann?? Lineker? and many others. The point about Scarlett Johannsen is missing the point when all the potential wives are gonna be models anyway. i.e. the average EPL professional WILL be a multi-millionaire within a few years and the best players inside a year or so. So he won't be choosing between the missus and Scarlett J will he!?

:bang:
 

liewser

Member
Oct 14, 2004
315
5
That is a false analogy as the difference in wages like that is extremely rare. 60-65K pw difference between wage offers and undermines what you're saying. Take mercenary Lucas Neil 35K liverpool with the promise of a rise on performance criteria and 60k Spammers. Even the wage offers at Spurs and Spam were closer for Bent.

Its not a false analogy, its hypothetical, hence the "(hypothetical)". In reality this is rarely a decision that would have to be made, but what im saying is that if this was the reality, the money would come first, not the trophies, because that is more important to the players at the core.

In reality the closest choice that players have to my hypothetical analogy is between the following options:

1) High wages and a lot less chance of winning trophies.
2) Slightly less wages and a much higher chance of winning things.

That choice doesnt expose a players need to earn money. However if you honestly believe that given the choice, players would choose trophies (i.e. personal glory and achievement) over money (a substantial constraint on how they live the rest of their life) then you have too much faith in the pulling power of "winning". And in many cases "winning" isn't even guarenteed.
 

JuanRebelde

Member
Apr 10, 2006
978
2
Its not a false analogy, its hypothetical, hence the "(hypothetical)". In reality this is rarely a decision that would have to be made, but what im saying is that if this was the reality, the money would come first, not the trophies, because that is more important to the players at the core.

In reality the closest choice that players have to my hypothetical analogy is between the following options:

1) High wages and a lot less chance of winning trophies.
2) Slightly less wages and a much higher chance of winning things.

That choice doesnt expose a players need to earn money. However if you honestly believe that given the choice, players would choose trophies (i.e. personal glory and achievement) over money (a substantial constraint on how they live the rest of their life) then you have too much faith in the pulling power of "winning". And in many cases "winning" isn't even guarenteed.

I think we have to agree to disagree on the whole subject as it comes down to a personal interpretation of the transfers we are seening these days. But interesting all the same.
 

19darren82

Why is "abbreviation" such a long word?
Nov 1, 2006
524
1
i think people are too quick to moan at the players, petrov, neil etc, i'm sorry but if another company offered me double my current salary i'd be off, they're only human, a footballers work is only what 20 yrs max, so they get wat they can in that period, fair play to them. People like bent, he chose us not cus he thought 'fuck getting richer quicker' he chose us as he's struggled before and can see our potential, thats all.
 
Dec 6, 2006
11
0
When Keane signed his new contract earlier this summer, reports said it was for £50-55k a week. The contract that Berbatov may or may not have signed this summer was also supposed to have been in the £50-55k pw bracket and Bent's just come in at a reported £45k.

Might be shooting in teh dark but I'd guess that was one of the reasons Defoe ws less than happy to sign up for £30k a week, ie. not because he's a bread head (though he might be how the hell do I know?) but because it would signal his place in the pecking order, how many games he was likely to get, how much he valued his talent and that would have a knock on effect for his career.

Our wage structure has already changed in response to the football bubble boom, the real questions for spurs in our pre-CL football days (ptui ptui) are judgement calls on who's worth the cash, and who's considered dispensable.
 

michaelden

Knight of the Fat Fanny
Aug 13, 2004
26,386
21,685
Our priority must be a larger stadium that seats more than 60K fans. Ideally with two levels of boxes as that's where the big bucks is too.

We could fill 80K in almost every Category A & B game I reckon.
 
Top