Football Thread 16/17- Cheick Tiote R.I.P.

[Blue Eyes]

Fuchs did wrong and probably deserved his booking, although I'm not clear on the rules in that regard. What I am clear on is that Sanchez was not two meters away from Fuchs when he should have been which is a breach of the rules. The little banana split should have been sent off for standing too close and then play acting like a little gooseberry fool weasel. Pathetic wanker.

[Gandalf]

Watch away.



It was a foul throw anyway. The throw must be in one complete smooth motion. Fuchs stutters, then changes his angle of the throw.

That said, Sanchez cheated, looked like he got shot to get the player sent off.

[Oblomov Boblomov]

Of course Fuchs did it on purpose . Yes, technically it's violent, but it's hardly a dangerous act.

I'm much more bothered by Sanchez's faked reaction. Can't stand that gooseberry fool and he's cemented his reputation now as a bellend as far as I'm concerned.

[Oblomov Boblomov]

Just had the 'footballers get paid too much' debate in the office.

Apparently I'm wrong because everyone disagrees with me.

They couldn't answer the 'Where should the money go instead?' question. Supply and demand, people. Don't blame the industry just because it appeals strongly enough to people who have money to spend on it!

[Moggy]

Just had the 'footballers get paid too much' debate in the office.

Apparently I'm wrong because everyone disagrees with me.

They couldn't answer the 'Where should the money go instead?' question. Supply and demand, people. Don't blame the industry just because it appeals strongly enough to people who have money to spend on it!

I agree with you. That money is in the game and isn’t going away any time soon, surely the people that actually play should be the ones to benefit most?

Did anybody bring up that nurses deserve it more?

[Oblomov Boblomov]

Just had the 'footballers get paid too much' debate in the office.

Apparently I'm wrong because everyone disagrees with me.

They couldn't answer the 'Where should the money go instead?' question. Supply and demand, people. Don't blame the industry just because it appeals strongly enough to people who have money to spend on it!

I agree with you. That money is in the game and isn’t going away any time soon, surely the people that actually play should be the ones to benefit most?

Did anybody bring up that nurses deserve it more?

Fortunately not. It went more down the culture and moral route.

It then took a bizarre twist into gender-based pay equality. I explained that there's not even equality within the same gender, as better male footballers get paid more than other male footballers. Apparently "that's not right" and it's simply a case that women are paid less than men. I said that it's because they don't generate the same demand, but apparently I'm wrong again and it's actually just because they're women.

[Rocsteady]

I've had the same debate with people on here who I'm pretty sure still post in relation to male & female tennis players getting paid the same; just because they play the same amount of matches shouldn't mean the prize money is the same since they don't generate the same amount of revenue.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

Just had the 'footballers get paid too much' debate in the office.

Apparently I'm wrong because everyone disagrees with me.

They couldn't answer the 'Where should the money go instead?' question. Supply and demand, people. Don't blame the industry just because it appeals strongly enough to people who have money to spend on it!

I agree with you. That money is in the game and isn’t going away any time soon, surely the people that actually play should be the ones to benefit most?

Did anybody bring up that nurses deserve it more?

Fortunately not. It went more down the culture and moral route.

It then took a bizarre twist into gender-based pay equality. I explained that there's not even equality within the same gender, as better male footballers get paid more than other male footballers. Apparently "that's not right" and it's simply a case that women are paid less than men. I said that it's because they don't generate the same demand, but apparently I'm wrong again and it's actually just because they're women.

I hate the gender based pay equality discussion as no one ever seems to be able to separate the difference between doing an identical job, a similar job, working in the same industry or just male/female comparisons.

I saw a report the other day on 'gender pay discrimination within the Police in the UK'. It seems that men are paid more than women in the police, this report was used by some organisation, i can't remember who to highlight gender discrimination. But it is completely twisted. Police forces are organised on pay structures, every job has a pay scale, start at the bottom, work to the top of the scale, based purely on service. Gender does not come into it at all. The differences are the following. Female officers tend to leave the police forces far earlier than men, they don't stick with the job as long. Also it took into consideration all roles within the police service. Women make up about 80% of civilian roles in the police, these roles are generally lower paid than police officer roles, bringing the average salary far below that of male officers.

Sport is completely different to any other industry. The sportsmen and women are the star attractions, they are the reason people pay to watch it and companies want to sponsor them. They get paid ridiculous sums of money and it seems unfair when Jane is working in the club shop on just above minimum wage, but it's never going to change.

What i would say though is that in Football i think wages have become too high from a sustainability point of view. Top Clubs in England especially are so reliant on tv money, average ages of supporters are going up, the percentage of kids watching football is going down. If they don't do something to make it more attractive to younger people then tv money may start to level out or fall. If the players were paid less then there would be more money available to spend making it more attractive.

We always here that in Germany their ticket prices are far lower but the average spend on food and merchandise is far higher. Fans are starting to become disillusioned here regarding how much it costs to go to watch a game. If the stars were paid a little less then the prices could come down.

[Moggy]

I've had the same debate with people on here who I'm pretty sure still post in relation to male & female tennis players getting paid the same; just because they play the same amount of matches shouldn't mean the prize money is the same since they don't generate the same amount of revenue.

The grand slams in tennis are played at the same time and are part of the same broadcasting deals. The prize money should therefore be equal but only if the same number of sets are played by men and women.

Women's football has completely separate competitions and broadcasting deals and so of course the money is different. Plus the money in men's football is completely different between all the different players, teams and leagues.

[Dowbocop]

Of course Fuchs did it on purpose . Yes, technically it's violent, but it's hardly a dangerous act.

I'm much more bothered by Sanchez's faked reaction. Can't stand that gooseberry fool and he's cemented his reputation now as a bellend as far as I'm concerned.

Doesn't matter. Beckham's foot flick wasn't a career ender, and neither are 90% of the headbutts seen in football actually dangerous.

Anyway, I think we can all agree neither party covered themselves in glory.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

Ok next subject Arsenal V Totternham - has the power shifted?

There was an ongoing debate on Talksport this morning about it. It was sparked by a Wenger interview where he claimed that

[quote]'You cannot say the weight of one year has the weight of 20,' said Wenger. 'I answered the question of shift for 18 consecutive years, nothing changes in that.

For me it's a pointless argument but it seemed to rile up a lot of supporters and ex professionals on both sides. For me Arsenal are a bigger side. Prior to the formation of the premiership Tottenham and Arsenal were pretty evenly matched in revenue and estimated fan bases but Arsenal have exploded over the past 25 years into a Global club. I know that Spurs are the smaller club. The premiership did away with kids supporting teams based on location or family allegiance. It lead to kids wanting to support the fashionable clubs. Arsenal and Man United were the two main fashionable clubs, later joined by Chelsea, with Liverpool historically always being up there.

Will spurs finish above Arsenal this year? i hope so. If they do does that mean Spurs are the better team? Yes i think it does. Football is organised in a league format, it's all about how you've performed over the entire season. It's not over yet this season, i'm not expecting a spurs win on Sunday.

I think that even if Spurs finished above Arsenal for the next 10 years running that they still wouldn't reach the size of Arsenal as a club. Arsenal took their chances at the right time and pulled away from Spurs. With the right management and structure we can compete with Arsenal though as we have done for the past few years with Arsenal hampered by poor recruitment and board room disagreements.

[Moggy]

At the moment there is no doubt that Tottenham are on top. I would be stunned if Arsenal finished above them!

That doesn't mean the power has shifted permanently, Wenger is right that one season doesn't change things. But with the way things are going it will take something special from Arsenal to get back above Tottenham next season and for the following seasons.

[Drumstick]

Just had the 'footballers get paid too much' debate in the office.

Apparently I'm wrong because everyone disagrees with me.

They couldn't answer the 'Where should the money go instead?' question. Supply and demand, people. Don't blame the industry just because it appeals strongly enough to people who have money to spend on it!

I agree with you. That money is in the game and isn’t going away any time soon, surely the people that actually play should be the ones to benefit most?

Did anybody bring up that nurses deserve it more?

Fortunately not. It went more down the culture and moral route.

It then took a bizarre twist into gender-based pay equality. I explained that there's not even equality within the same gender, as better male footballers get paid more than other male footballers. Apparently "that's not right" and it's simply a case that women are paid less than men. I said that it's because they don't generate the same demand, but apparently I'm wrong again and it's actually just because they're women.

It appears that you have been talking to people who have no strawberry floating clue about football.

[Moggy]

It appears that you have been talking to people who have no strawberry floating clue about football.

Brighton fans?

[Drumstick]

It all comes down to how you define power. Are Spurs as rich and therefore as big as Arsenal? No. Are Spurs currently a much better team than Arsenal? Without a doubt. They were for the majority of last season too.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

It all comes down to how you define power. Are Spurs as rich and therefore as big as Arsenal? No. Are Spurs currently a much better team than Arsenal? Without a doubt. They were for the majority of last season too.

Indeed, that's the problem really. Everyone has a different definition for measuring a 'big club'.

[Moggy]

It all comes down to how you define power. Are Spurs as rich and therefore as big as Arsenal? No. Are Spurs currently a much better team than Arsenal? Without a doubt. They were for the majority of last season too.

Indeed, that's the problem really. Everyone has a different definition for measuring a 'big club'.

Yeah, people seem to base on it differing criteria. Trophies, fanbase size, money and current league/cup position seem to be the main ones.

Without a doubt though Arsenal and Spurs are both big clubs. There's no argument to be had there. Overall I'd say that Arsenal are "bigger" as they have won more (13 league titles compared to 2) competitions.

The question though was whether the power has shifted. That remains to be seen, but Tottenham are certainly making a good go of it at the moment and look like they will be the better club over the next few seasons.

[Drumstick]

It's not like Spurs are paupers is it? They've still got lots of cash behind them and are the second best team in the country right now. If they sustain their recent level then they'll be able to start attracting marquee names in a couple of seasons.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

It's not like Spurs are paupers is it? They've still got lots of cash behind them and are the second best team in the country right now. If they sustain their recent level then they'll be able to start attracting marquee names in a couple of seasons.

Arsenal's Revenue is pretty much twice that of Spurs. Neither clubs owners put their own money into the club.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

In shocking, unexpected news, Spurs have announced that they will play all their home games at Wembley next season.