What's new

Spurs players taking the dollars

knilly

SC Supporter
Apr 12, 2005
1,819
1,033
What's the problem with recognisable people being paid to front advertising campaigns? This sell out concept is a complete mockery.

What if the players did not have additional sponsorship and demanded a bigger salary from clubs like us, would you be happy to pay higher prices for tickets or shirts to cover this cost?
 

guiltyparty

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2005
9,023
13,524
What's the problem with recognisable people being paid to front advertising campaigns? This sell out concept is a complete mockery.

What if the players did not have additional sponsorship and demanded a bigger salary from clubs like us, would you be happy to pay higher prices for tickets or shirts to cover this cost?

That is totally not how it works at all. Sponsorships are an additional stream, they are not supplementing salaries. Salaries are rising exponentially, even with endorsement deals.

Somewhat naively maybe, I didn't mean this thread to become a 'sell out: discuss' thread. I genuinely thought finding old adverts of Spurs players would be fun
 

alfie103

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2005
4,023
4,510
What's the problem with recognisable people being paid to front advertising campaigns? This sell out concept is a complete mockery.

What if the players did not have additional sponsorship and demanded a bigger salary from clubs like us, would you be happy to pay higher prices for tickets or shirts to cover this cost?

Well my point is the fact they don't need the sponsorship or the bigger salary. They have enough money.
 

THX2208

Ubisoft Goes Steamworks Bye Bye; Always On DRM
Dec 6, 2006
2,924
4,780
I always remember buying the "Terry Venables board game" In the introduction manual Venables say`s that its not the team that wins the league that is the most successful but the one that makes the most money are the real winners! So the game was based around making money rather than results on the field.
 

guiltyparty

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2005
9,023
13,524
I always remember buying the "Terry Venables board game" In the introduction manual Venables say`s that its not the team that wins the league that is the most successful but the one that makes the most money are the real winners! So the game was based around making money rather than results on the field.

90s Waddington - Terry Venables The Manager board game -002.jpg
 

TottenhamMattSpur

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
10,925
16,007
Well firstly, If you are making £60,000 a week, you don't need to make any more money. You have enough to live an extremely comfortable lifestyle. If they donated it to charity then fair enough but just to make more money then you don't need to do it. Your second point is just down to personal opinion really but I would prefer to have a job i liked or didn't hate for less money myself.

Society wouldn't be happier if everyone just did everything for money and tried to get as much money as they could. What about volunteer workers for charities? Should they think '**** it, I'm not getting paid' or do you think they do it out of the goodness of their heart? A lot of people criticise people who are greedy with money, most people understand that people need money to live.

I don't see why people 'bettering themselves' just comes down to earning more money. I would say people doing charity work or helping the vulnerable are doing more to better themselves then people just chasing the dollar.
The problem is, for everyone earning £60k a week for being good at something (football, acting etc) there's hundreds that couldn't be bothered to do much. Instead of trying to make a better life for themselves they sit on their arse moaning about how the other half live and, instead of wanting more for themselves, they want the other half to have less.
This unfortunately is a very British mind set these days.
Across the pond it's massively in the other half where most would rather be doctors or lawyers and go to college. Sadly for them they can't all go but the attitude is different 'generally' towards the successful than it is here.

And, for the record, there's no such thing as too much money and we have no idea what these chaps do with it. I should imagine most of them do more for good causes than any of us can imagine.
 

alfie103

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2005
4,023
4,510
The problem is, for everyone earning £60k a week for being good at something (football, acting etc) there's hundreds that couldn't be bothered to do much. Instead of trying to make a better life for themselves they sit on their arse moaning about how the other half live and, instead of wanting more for themselves, they want the other half to have less.
This unfortunately is a very British mind set these days.
Across the pond it's massively in the other half where most would rather be doctors or lawyers and go to college. Sadly for them they can't all go but the attitude is different 'generally' towards the successful than it is here.

And, for the record, there's no such thing as too much money and we have no idea what these chaps do with it. I should imagine most of them do more for good causes than any of us can imagine.

There are plenty of people who are trying very hard to be footballers or actors/actresses who aren't talented enough or just plain unlucky to not make it to a level where they can make lots of money. You make a massive generalisation about most people who aren't rich are just lazy and are just jealous of those who having wealth. Some people no doubt are like that but many more work hard at their jobs and have other commitments.

I don't think this is a exclusive British mindset and in some ways, I don't see not looking to constantly try and get more money as a negative mindset. If anything, I personally think British culture is being adversely affected by the consumerism and obsession with wealth that is prevalent in the mainstream U.S culture that I have experienced.

The reason they all can't go is because College is extremely expensive with Colleges trying to make a profit but hey, that makes the world a better place right?

I believe there is a thing called too much money and it can be very damaging to society. Fair play to rich people who give to charity though but I just think 'ordinary' people have done as much in time and effort spent setting up and running charities.
 

guiltyparty

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2005
9,023
13,524
The problem is, for everyone earning £60k a week for being good at something (football, acting etc) there's hundreds that couldn't be bothered to do much. Instead of trying to make a better life for themselves they sit on their arse moaning about how the other half live and, instead of wanting more for themselves, they want the other half to have less.
This unfortunately is a very British mind set these days.
Across the pond it's massively in the other half where most would rather be doctors or lawyers and go to college. Sadly for them they can't all go but the attitude is different 'generally' towards the successful than it is here.

And, for the record, there's no such thing as too much money and we have no idea what these chaps do with it. I should imagine most of them do more for good causes than any of us can imagine.

It's not just "not being bothered" though - there's a finite number of positions or spots in these industries. Look at how many young footballers fall by the way side on the way to turning pro. That's not not being bothered, it's not being as good as other people, which is completely understandable. Someone has to be better at something than someone else. Some of that is graft, but there's a lot of luck and genetics involved too.

And if everyone only went for the massively well paying jobs, looking out for them alone, you'd have no one to do the unglamorous roles that are vital for a functioning society. It's why the US has had to privatise everything.

And good causes is contextual, too. A man who has £100 to his name and gives it all to charity is a far more generous person than a millionaire who gives £1,000. Judging everything in monetary terms will be the death of this planet. As the classic adage goes, this generation knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
 
Last edited:

eddiebailey

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2004
7,454
6,717
The problem is, for everyone earning £60k a week for being good at something (football, acting etc) there's hundreds that couldn't be bothered to do much. Instead of trying to make a better life for themselves they sit on their arse moaning about how the other half live and, instead of wanting more for themselves, they want the other half to have less.
This unfortunately is a very British mind set these days.
Across the pond it's massively in the other half where most would rather be doctors or lawyers and go to college. Sadly for them they can't all go but the attitude is different 'generally' towards the successful than it is here.

This idea that anyone is unhappy with the distribution of wealth must be envious is pernicious right wing nonsense. You can be quite happy with your own lifestyle while still being of the view that there are a few people with far too much money and a lot with not enough, and believing that that sucks.

And being poor does not equate to sitting on your arse. There are lots of people who work like dogs and earn fuck all.

And, for the record, there's no such thing as too much money

The rate of drug related deaths among pop stars and heiresses suggests otherwise. The ennui of having so much money that nothing any longer has any value must become unbearable.

and we have no idea what these chaps do with it. should imagine most of them do more for good causes than any of us can imagine.

Relative to the amount of free time and available income I doubt most of them do very much compared to the army of volunteers and donors to charity who keep society functioning.
 
Top