Ashley Cole

[William the White]

Bolton 'customers' boo Nicky Hunt maybe?

Interesting LK... Plenty of 'customers' here expressing dissatisfation. 'We pay our money, we're entitled to boo, moan, advocate murder and deaths by cancer for players' wives...'

are you implying the customer isn't always right?

[Lord Kangana]

Probably the opposite WtW.

More that we're all customers now. The powers that be (and the players et al are complicit) have created a 'brand'. They want to treat us like, and for us to behave like, customers. I've heard someone recently defending the exhorbitant wages (immoral? s'pose it depends on your own moral/political compass) because they are comparable to showbiz types, to Hollywood Matinee idols. Sow the wind.....

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I've heard someone recently defending the exhorbitant wages (immoral? s'pose it depends on your own moral/political compass)

How it can be considered a question of morality is beyond me.

[William the White]

I've heard someone recently defending the exhorbitant wages (immoral? s'pose it depends on your own moral/political compass)

How it can be considered a question of morality is beyond me.

The failure of thought is extraordinary here.

How far 'beyond you' is it?

As far as the bankers getting bailed out by the rest of us?

Is only the market meant to determine what is right and wrong?

You might try to push yourself beyond the first tee occasionally, perhaps?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I've heard someone recently defending the exhorbitant wages (immoral? s'pose it depends on your own moral/political compass)

How it can be considered a question of morality is beyond me.

The failure of thought is extraordinary here.

How far 'beyond you' is it?

As far as the bankers getting bailed out by the rest of us?

Is only the market meant to determine what is right and wrong?

You might try to push yourself beyond the first tee occasionally, perhaps?

Pushing myself beyond the first tee is the reason I'll still be up reading tonight when you're in bed.

Bizarre personal comments aside...

Nationalising banks troubles me, I promise you.

But back to the original point... I fail to see how footballers' wages, the rewards for being part of an elite in a legal entertainment industry there is high demand for, are immoral.

Unless, of course, we happy to label anything we disagree with as being 'immoral'.

If the failure of thought is mine, perhaps you'd be good enough to give me the benefit of your thinking on this?

[Lord Kangana]

I think WtW was asking you to think outside of your own particular box, in that we don't (and can't) live in a vacuum, where the only precursor to any object or entity having a value is its ability to generate cash. Its such an ethereal notion. Perhaps football (and life) has more to offer than just that. Maybe, just maybe.

Then again, he might not have been saying that.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think WtW was asking you to think outside of your own particular box, in that we don't (and can't) live in a vacuum, where the only precursor to any object or entity having a value is its ability to generate cash. Its such an ethereal notion. Perhaps football (and life) has more to offer than just that. Maybe, just maybe.

Then again, he might not have been saying that.

I see.

So would you too presume to think that in my 'box' the only value in life can be measured in £ ?


Ok, well I'm grateful for being encouraged to think beyond my myopic comfort zone. Perhaps you would both tackle a question from me, then?

If the way footballers are remunerated is, at present, 'immoral', what would constitute a 'moral' wage, or at least, what would a moral system of payment look like?

[H. Pedersen]

Again, I feel like booing a player is not justified unless they aren't giving it their all. Nicky Hunt isn't lazy, he's just (IMHO of course) not what we need in terms of a Premiership right back. So if Hunt scores a disastrous own goal, don't boo him, boo the guy who put him in the team.

[Lord Kangana]

I think WtW was asking you to think outside of your own particular box, in that we don't (and can't) live in a vacuum, where the only precursor to any object or entity having a value is its ability to generate cash. Its such an ethereal notion. Perhaps football (and life) has more to offer than just that. Maybe, just maybe.

Then again, he might not have been saying that.

I see.

So would you too presume to think that in my 'box' the only value in life can be measured in £ ?


Ok, well I'm grateful for being encouraged to think beyond my myopic comfort zone. Perhaps you would both tackle a question from me, then?

If the way footballers are remunerated is, at present, 'immoral', what would constitute a 'moral' wage, or at least, what would a moral system of payment look like?

Scrap the whole capitalist system and start again?

More seriously (although..), the English language is full of beautiful words like innovation, invention, ingenuity. Before penicillin, people didn't walk around decrying the fact they didn't have it. Didn't stop its discovery. Perhaps its time people started to use their noggins for the good of all, not the 000's on their bank statement. Perhaps its time for football to get its house in order. Perhaps its time for a discussion on salary caps.

Instant answers lead to instant problems. But theres always a better way.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Ok, so about this discussion on salary caps....

If you were to contribute to the discussion, where would you suggest the cap be placed so that footballers' wages are no longer immoral?

I'm looking to locate, as accurately as possible, what is a moral wage and what is an immoral wage.

[Worthy4England]

I think it also prompts an interesting discussion around what it a moral wage in a wider sense - not just football. Given that you probably couldn't morally justify capping footballers wages as opposed to say someone in the city reaping bonus payments in the millions by selling something that to all intents and purposes doesn't exist.

I suspect the major difference between the two is that the city broker's remuneration is more likely to be tied to the revenue they've generated (which if not actually tangible can be represented on a balance sheet). If we were to look at Chelsea's sources of income, then what they get paid I suspect has very little to do with their contribution to Revenue or Profit. So you could argue in that sense that they're taking out more than they're returning from their invested labour.

That said, they are being paid in part from someone who's already paid his dues to Society so can invest his hard earned anyhow he wants, even though those earnings have had some serious question marks about whether they were morally gained for a number of years now.

So - in summation - there are groups of players getting paid more than the income they generate, the residual balance being made up by earnings from a chequered past. If we compare that, say, to the moral indignation people felt when Unions were trying to secure 1/2% increase for people getting paid below the official poverty line then I suspect one could take a view that there was a certain amount of immorality involved.

[boltonboris]

Footballers, like anyone else, are only worth what somebody is willing to pay them

[H. Pedersen]

I suppose you could argue that it's immoral to pay footballers £150,000 a week when that money could feed hundreds of hungry people for a year.

But by that logic, you could argue that we're all immoral for paying £40 for a match ticket or replica jersey when that money could vaccinate multiple children in a developing country.

[Verbal]

More seriously (although..), the English language is full of beautiful words like innovation, invention, ingenuity. Before penicillin, people didn't walk around decrying the fact they didn't have it. Didn't stop its discovery. Perhaps its time people started to use their noggins for the good of all, not the 000's on their bank statement. Perhaps its time for football to get its house in order. Perhaps its time for a discussion on salary caps.

Instant answers lead to instant problems. But theres always a better way.

Surely that is more to do with the fact that a problem was identified (i.e. death), and so a solution was found? That, and before then people didn't have a penicillin to miss. With money however, the lavish use of wealth by some of the richer members of society only slams home the fact that some people just don't have it, or have enough. I could talk about jealousy and that, but I don't want to start a bushfire with this. All I'm saying is comparing the hypothetical discovery of something to an engrained monetary system seems wrong.

Anywho, to moral/immoral wages...

There aint a figure because its an absurd idea. How do you tag a concept onto an actual income? You cannae. Different people depending on their financial situation will percieve a different amount of money as being moral/immoral to earn. If you set one up then you immediately cause a division.

People, with survival as their primary goal, do like to have money to help achieve it. When they get there, their more likely to make their life easier first before looking at the big wide world. I can only really think of the super-rich philanthropists.

This thread is reminding me of a current debate/disagreement/argument I'm having with my housemate. Heh.

[Lord Kangana]

I think you've kind of missed my point. When people accuse capitalism of not working, the immediate response of most capitalists is "and what is your alternative?". Apply that to the penicillin comparison, it will probably make more sense.

[Verbal]

Aye, wasn't it churchill or someone who said 'capitalism is the worst system, except for all others?'

Or something along that script.

From that I'm guessing you're after someone who can answer adequately the question 'Whats the alternative?'.

Fair point, though in some ways I think it is a bit idealistic. S'all about the satisfaction of unlimited needs with limited resources. As a system, capitalism is efficient enough but provides disparity. Look to the left, and well, despite its clearly good intentions, it seems to waste more than we can actually afford.

Nothing is every easy eh?

[officer_dibble]

on a serious note most people have got to agree with my POV that I wouldn't piss on ashley cole if he is on fire

to simplfy matters somewhat

[communistworkethic]

on a serious note most people have got to agree with my POV that I wouldn't piss on ashley cole if he is on fire

to simplfy matters somewhat

I don't think they have to agree but they should do

[mofgimmers]

After reading this thread, I've changed my mind about 6 times... I'm obviously a spineless git... but basically, I originally said 'yeah, it was kinda out of order' and then I thought 'hang on, he's a dick... fcuk his feelings' and then...

Basically, to quote Eamonn Dunphy

"If that was a concert, you'd boo"

[William the White]

on a serious note most people have got to agree with my POV that I wouldn't piss on ashley cole if he is on fire

to simplfy matters somewhat

But, suppose you could piss petrol?