Obscene

[sunburywhite]

Premier League clubs have spent a record £1.17bn on players in this summer's transfer window, according to business analysts Deloitte.

The 20 clubs had spent the sum by the end of Wednesday, beating the previous record of £1.165bn set last summer.

Transfers should be heavily taxed and the proceeds go towards building hospitals for the common folk

[westcliff white]

Its relative isnt it, TV revenues and sponsorship, so they have a suprplus from what they have earnt so they spend it on players to further success. Buisness's are taxed as it is, the avoidence of such is a different matter and not for discussion on the board, but they should not be taxed twice because they are successful.

The TV money oculd be restricted and then everything would, hopefully, come back into check. But then some clubs would fall by the way side.

All in all it has become a vicious circle and one that is now hard to aovid i fear

[Whitesideup]

Without the top signings, they would probably struggle against European sides. If the numbers are correct, then I'm surprised it is so close to last year's number. And is this gross or net?

Mind you, some of the extra money could be spent lowering prices of tickets and food and drink at the grounds!

[The Rock]

It's amazing the Huddersfield town record signing was 1.8m before getting promoted. The gulf of difference between funds available between the PL and the rest of the league is greater than ever.

[Andy S]

It could be used to lower the price of food and drink along with football shirts. But it won't. The fans will always be fleeced

[SG]

HMRC now regard football clubs as a major source of tax. Add to that this years Apprenticeship levy which is a tax on employment wages by any other name and the Government are smiling.
Meanwhile at our local grassroots club we are having a whip round to find £600 for a new strip. It isn't right. I hope it all comes tumbling down one day but I don't hold out much hope

[Luka]

As Westcliff says, the clubs receiving the fees pay taxes on their profits. The players pay tax on their signing-on fees and salaries (at a higher rate than most of us on this board), the agents on their fees, and all the lawyers, banks et al. involved pay taxes on their salaries and profits as well. I'd be surprised if at least a third of it didn't ultimately end up spent on hospitals for common folk.

I have no problem with the money involved.
Money makes the world go round and football brings riches and employment to many outside the clubs involved. Football is an economy on its own and the tax revenue it produces helps pay for many things for us all. TV rights pay for it. It's a self generating business.

[toshes mate]

Surely grassroots football depends upon public spaces with football pitches and largely voluntary unpaid organisers, coaches and players, plus schools who still have playing fields or facilities they can use.  The money for all that is becoming increasingly limited in contemporary society because of our social norms.  Most football income is via media channels with big interests in looking to sell advertising to a rapidly shrinking range of industries that can afford to dabble.  Betting figures large in that.  Live support through turnstiles for anything other than the very largest clubs wouldn't meet the cost of staging a game and showing profit.  Like so many things in life business and economics are no longer straightforward and neither is taxation.  Nothing should be too big to fail.

[SG]

I hope it all comes tumbling down one day but I don't hold out much hope

What do you think the effect of that will be at grassroots level?

No difference because we will continue to get on with the game but at least the inequity will be removed. I have no issue with the top players being well rewarded but the sums of money that are now being banded around for very average players are as the OP said obscene - in my opinion of course. I also don't hold with this 'it is a short career and they need to make it whilst they can'. Playing for 1 year would set most people up for life. The game is being/has been progressively taken away from its roots and the FA etc are complicit in this, chasing the big buck.

[westcliff white]

I hope it all comes tumbling down one day but I don't hold out much hope

What do you think the effect of that will be at grassroots level?

No difference because we will continue to get on with the game but at least the inequity will be removed. I have no issue with the top players being well rewarded but the sums of money that are now being banded around for very average players are as the OP said obscene - in my opinion of course. I also don't hold with this 'it is a short career and they need to make it whilst they can'. Playing for 1 year would set most people up for life. The game is being/has been progressively taken away from its roots and the FA etc are complicit in this, chasing the big buck.

I took the OP as refering to transfer fees, those are what they are, the money in the game dicates that, for payers of all standards, just the way it has gone. It isnt right but you cannot tax them twice for the same thing, tax a transfer then tax them again in their accounts, that is just plainly wrong.

Players salaries are a different issue and relates to player power to some degree, since Bosman they players have had most of the power and can move for nothing and get a fortune or even on a regular transfer get an astronomical wage. Again that comes down to the money in the game as well and that if taken away would decimate a lot of clubs, and remember clubs wouldnt pay those salaries if it wasnt worth them too, be that merchandise or success.

At the end of the day if fans dont want the money in the game they dont have to pay for sky, if no one bought that the money would fizzle out, we have that choice. In someways we help fund the beast that has become football.

[bill taylors apprentice]

The main issue regards money in the game is what the agents take out of it, taxed or not.

On grass roots football, its all about having enough decent pitches and decent coaches.
As long as enough money is used on this the fancy kit and other extras are unnecessary.

[westcliff white]

Agents are a complete different issue and I agree the money they take is ridiculous, but that isnt part of the money being reported as that is just transfer fees. Usually agents fees are not included in the alledged payment made for a plyer between clubs.

granted that isnt always the case, a few high profile moves prove that, but if a club wants 50 mill and gets 80 and they pay 30 on then thats what is wrong with the game.

[Woolly Mammoth]

I hope it all comes tumbling down one day but I don't hold out much hope

What do you think the effect of that will be at grassroots level?

No difference because we will continue to get on with the game but at least the inequity will be removed. I have no issue with the top players being well rewarded but the sums of money that are now being banded around for very average players are as the OP said obscene - in my opinion of course. I also don't hold with this 'it is a short career and they need to make it whilst they can'. Playing for 1 year would set most people up for life. The game is being/has been progressively taken away from its roots and the FA etc are complicit in this, chasing the big buck.

I took the OP as refering to transfer fees, those are what they are, the money in the game dicates that, for payers of all standards, just the way it has gone. It isnt right but you cannot tax them twice for the same thing, tax a transfer then tax them again in their accounts, that is just plainly wrong.

Players salaries are a different issue and relates to player power to some degree, since Bosman they players have had most of the power and can move for nothing and get a fortune or even on a regular transfer get an astronomical wage. Again that comes down to the money in the game as well and that if taken away would decimate a lot of clubs, and remember clubs wouldnt pay those salaries if it wasnt worth them too, be that merchandise or success.

At the end of the day if fans dont want the money in the game they dont have to pay for sky, if no one bought that the money would fizzle out, we have that choice. In someways we help fund the beast that has become football.

I agree WW, and nothing lasts for ever. Because of the Sky Finance etc, a lot of clubs are now built on sand, and if the sponsors money and other income dried up, these clubs would collapse like a pack of cards, and create a domino effect throughout football.
Which in turn like the Woolly Mammoth the beast that has been created could eventually die out.

[bill taylors apprentice]

Agents are a coplete different issue and I agree the money they take is ridiculous, but that isnt part of the money being reoprted as that is just transfer fees. Usually agents fees are not included in the alledged payment made for a plyer between clubs.

granted that isnt always the case, a few high profile moves prove that, but if a club wants 50 mill and gets 80 and they pay 30 on then thats what is wrong with the game.

Granted this is about inflated transfer fees and if the money is mainly circulated around "football" and taxed that's fine but while each transfer has its own individual issues, generally the bigger the fee the bigger the cut the agent takes. No?

Financial advisers to people who wipe the players backside are all felt to be necessary in today's game but agents take out a significant percentage from transfers that's lost to the game.   

[westcliff white]

Agents are a coplete different issue and I agree the money they take is ridiculous, but that isnt part of the money being reoprted as that is just transfer fees. Usually agents fees are not included in the alledged payment made for a plyer between clubs.

granted that isnt always the case, a few high profile moves prove that, but if a club wants 50 mill and gets 80 and they pay 30 on then thats what is wrong with the game.

Granted this is about inflated transfer fees and if the money is mainly circulated around "football" and taxed that's fine but while each transfer has its own individual issues, generally the bigger the fee the bigger the cut the agent takes. No?

Financial advisers to people who wipe the players backside are all felt to be necessary in today's game but agents take out a significant percentage from transfers that's lost to the game.   

I agree that is the case and is somehting that is wrnong with the game, but the fee reported by the OP is just trabsfer fees or thats how I am taking it. which means the amount is higher. Although I am not sure who pays the agemts these days, buying club, selling club, the player or a combination of all 3

[Lighthouse]

As a fan who through circumstances has been priced out of season tickets etc. In relative terms (hi Auntie Ada) the ticket prices are now ridiculous. The wages are stupid and the game lacks the excitement it once seemed to have.

However the same can be said about most things. The more we have convenience in everyday life, the less we need to pay people because many things have become automated and yet the prices have never been so high in every walk of life. Want to save the NHS, that'll cost billions because we need so many banks of bureaucracy. So many level of management etc.

The system is broken. We pay huge amounts for power when it is offered by millions of people all offering  a different price. Instead of blaming football let's blame bureaucracy. Why are we still forced to pay a tax for the BBC? Let's put all that money in licence fees towards the NHS. The BBC can be funded by advertising like everything else. It is our choice to pay or not to pay ticket prices. Some taxes we are forced to pay for no apparent reason.

[SG]

I hope it all comes tumbling down one day but I don't hold out much hope

What do you think the effect of that will be at grassroots level?

No difference because we will continue to get on with the game but at least the inequity will be removed. I have no issue with the top players being well rewarded but the sums of money that are now being banded around for very average players are as the OP said obscene - in my opinion of course. I also don't hold with this 'it is a short career and they need to make it whilst they can'. Playing for 1 year would set most people up for life. The game is being/has been progressively taken away from its roots and the FA etc are complicit in this, chasing the big buck.

I agree to some extent. E.g., when a player on £20k/wk leaves Fulham to earn £40k/wk somewhere else and people say, wouldn't you leave if someone offered you double your salary? IMO No, wanting more when you're already earning £1m pa age 20 is just greedy.

But I've no problem with players earning £1m+ pa in principle. If it has no impact at real "grassroots" level as you say, then why would you hope it all comes "crashing down" except through simple envy? 

If it does all collapse then I agree you'll get more equality which might feel nice, but all levels of professional football and the more serious levels of youth football will be worse off economically, so it reminds me a bit of that Thatcher quote about people who'd rather the poor were poorer than see the rich get richer.

But it isn't £1m p.a. is it. It is £10m p.a. ++ and continuing to rise. I would like it to come crashing down so that sanity can be restored to these numbers. It is not envy and certainly nothing to do with the rich getting richer etc. It is just morally wrong in my view for clubs to be paying £198m for one player when I think what that money could be used for. If you don't think the system is broken then that is the end of the debate.

And dont get me started on agents - bloody parasites and this money does not go back into the game at any level

[Riverside]

I now think of Football players and their transfers as Tulips . Question is when the crash comes .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk