Grabavoy

[typicalcity]

What the hell are you on about? Very few players are on 250k a week in the EPL. I find your posts totally arrogant. You try and come on here and try to be superior to everyone!

The 215k they are talking about isn't for a week, but a year.

What is your problem ? How when I'm talking to kjbert am I being arrogant just discussing the difference in wage structures.
There are plenty of players on £200k a week in the EPL most decent players are on £100k a week and youngsters on £50k a week.
I'm well aware of mls salary cap
Just what is your problem ? How does discussing wages make me superior in any way ?

 

[Seth]

What the hell are you on about? Very few players are on 250k a week in the EPL. I find your posts totally arrogant. You try and come on here and try to be superior to everyone!

The 215k they are talking about isn't for a week, but a year.

That's the point. Many EPL players make in a week what our *best* players make in a year. We can't possibly expect to have great players if we can't pay them. Even the "regular" players at Man City make between $100k and $140k per week, and the absolutely lowest paid player makes $15k per week.

Think about that. The Man City player getting paid the absolute lowest salary makes more than all our players except for Mix (and it's pretty close). The next lowest paid player makes double what Mix makes. Third from the bottom makes $3.8 million.

Yes, Man City pays more than most other teams, but the point still stands.

Source: http://www.newsjit.com/manchester-city-players-salaries-20152016-full-squad/

Edit (to clarify):
- I converted pounds in the article to dollars
- They list salaries per week. Not sure if that's for 39 matches or for 52 weeks. I assumed they mean per match. If they really meant for 52 weeks then my yearly salary numbers will be that much higher as I'd've left out 1/3 of their salary.

 

[william straiton]

What is your problem ? How when I'm talking to kjbert am I being arrogant just discussing the difference in wage structures.
There are plenty of players on £200k a week in the EPL most decent players are on £100k a week and youngsters on £50k a week.
I'm well aware of mls salary cap
Just what is your problem ? How does discussing wages make me superior in any way ?

There are a handful of players over 200k a week if that and most players are under 35k. Also your bullshit about youngsters is just that....bullshit!

All you do is talk drivel and grab figures out of the air to try and make you seem superior. Your an idiot that doesn't know when to shut up.

 

[william straiton]

That's the point. Many EPL players make in a week what our *best* players make in a year. We can't possibly expect to have great players if we can't pay them. Even the "regular" players at Man City make between $100k and $140k per week, and the absolutely lowest paid player makes $15k per week.

Think about that. The Man City player getting paid the absolute lowest salary makes more than all our players except for Mix (and it's pretty close). The next lowest paid player makes double what Mix makes. Third from the bottom makes $3.8 million.

Yes, Man City pays more than most other teams, but the point still stands.

Source: http://www.newsjit.com/manchester-city-players-salaries-20152016-full-squad/

Edit (to clarify):
- I converted pounds in the article to dollars
- They list salaries per week. Not sure if that's for 39 matches or for 52 weeks. I assumed they mean per match. If they really meant for 52 weeks then my yearly salary numbers will be that much higher as I'd've left out 1/3 of their salary.

Of course the MLS is poorly paid compared to many leagues, and the EPL. I would though take salaries posted about City with a pinch of salt. We have moved to a more incentive based scheme with basic salaries being lower.

Also City are one of the biggest payers. Most clubs in the EPL pay much lower salaries, which is why typical city is talking shit!

 

[JGarrettLieb]

Just to put things into perspective ,£250,000 a WEEK is not an uncommon wage in the EPL even crap players are on £50,000 a week

That is not quite right, though that may be a common salary among the players who can make the English national team starting 11, the actual starting salary for last season was £43,717. A salary which works out to about £2.3mm a year which translates to $3.5mm; roughly the MLS salary cap for this past season. Though one must remember that there are three different leagues within the premier league, relegation bait, midtablers, and the titans.

Salaries are wildly different between the first two sub-leagues and the last sub-league.

Sources because I feel they should be included in a factual discussion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-England-earning-average-2-3million-year.html

We have a long way to go before we can be considered anything like the top league worldwide, and there is a good chance that we never become that top league because the salary cap system is so incredibly valuable for the owners.

I think Soriano had it right, what the MLS needs to do in the next 10 years is knock off the Portuguese and Dutch leagues as the preferred destination for young developing players, and as a first stop for all of the South American talent that wants to be noticed by the big leagues. Anything else is simply not financially feasible, and even that goal might be out of reach if the next round of salary cap negotiations don't result in a massive increase in cap space.

Lets do some basic reasoning.

The average yearly salary of an Eredivise player in 2014 was £230,000 or roughly $350,000 per year. Assuming a 23 man roster this nets us roughly $8.05mm per year in player salaries.

The salary cap in the MLS for the 2015 season, exclusive of loopholes, was $3.49mm.

This salary cap will rise at the rate of 7% a year, for the duration of the CBA which expires in 2019.

In 2019 the MLS salary cap will be $4.57mm which is roughly 57% of the average team expenditure of the Eredivise in 2014.

This means that MLS will need to have a roughly a 76% cap increase for the 2020 season in order to equal the average team wages of the Eredivise in 2014.

This gets very slightly better in the fact that MLS salaries only count for the first 20 players, so the figures are really $7mm, 65% of the average team expenditure and a 53% increase in salary cap. Also because I don't know how many players an Eredivise club actually has on its first team, so I could be underestimating on that side too. I just chose 23 players because that's what an international roster is.

But the point stands, we are miles behind European leagues even in terms of the relatively low goal of becoming a feeder league for the big clubs of the world.


Sidenote: Might the lawyers around here comment on the difficulties of unraveling a monopolistic single entity sports league, or any legal compact, when a sizable percentage of the active participants are quite happy with the way things are?

 

[typicalcity]

Stop talking fucking shit. There are a handful of players over 200k a week if that and most players are under 35k. Also your bullshit about youngsters is just that....bullshit!

All you do is talk drivel and grab figures out of the air to try and make you seem superior. Your an idiot that doesn't know when to shut up.

I will leave you too it mate as you havnt got a clue what your talking about.
Maybe you could do some research about the wages that the EPL pays you might be shocked.

 

[Seth]

Of course the MLS is poorly paid compared to many leagues, and the EPL. I would though take salaries posted about City with a pinch of salt. We have moved to a more incentive based scheme with basic salaries being lower.

Also City are one of the biggest payers. Most clubs in the EPL pay much lower salaries, which is why typical city is talking shit!

No, the article I took those numbers from mentions the lowered salary numbers due to the incentives. The incentives are *not* included in the numbers I quoted as far as I can tell.

And just for fun, I looked up West Brom as a randomly selected club from the lower end of the table. Lowest paid player makes $250k per year. Second lowest makes $335k per year.

Also note, it looks like my quoted numbers for City are indeed too low as the West Brom article says they're per week and not per match.

So hey, nothing personal but your statements are a little bit crap, and not based on actual facts.

Source for West Brom numbers: http://www.celebritiesmoney.com/west-bromwich-albion-f-c-salaries-a-mid-to-lower-table-club/

 

[william straiton]

I will leave you too it mate as you havnt got a clue what your talking about.
Maybe you could do some research about the wages that the EPL pays you might be shocked.

Here is a link to the alleged top ten paid players

http://talksport.com/football/10-highest-paid-players-premier-league-weekly-wage-150604149421

Only 8 are on 200k or over. Like I say only a handful when you consider the 20 teams have a squad of 25 players each.

Didn't really have to much research to find that out

 

[william straiton]

No, the article I took those numbers from mentions the lowered salary numbers due to the incentives. The incentives are *not* included in the numbers I quoted as far as I can tell.

And just for fun, I looked up West Brom as a randomly selected club from the lower end of the table. Lowest paid player makes $250k per year. Second lowest makes $335k per year.

Also note, it looks like my quoted numbers for City are indeed too low as the West Brom article says they're per week and not per match.

So hey, nothing personal but your statements are a little bit crap, and not based on actual facts.

Source for West Brom numbers: http://www.celebritiesmoney.com/west-bromwich-albion-f-c-salaries-a-mid-to-lower-table-club/

Why are my statements crap? I just posted a link to show that only 8 players out of 500 in named squads are on 200k a week or over. This is indeed a handful

I also said I would take the City salaries and others posted with a pinch of salt, because I know for a fact that City are paying a less basic wage for new contracts and more in bonuses.

The West Brom figures show that no player is anywhere near 100k a week (this is pounds by the way) as typical city was saying.

So with all respect I don't believe my statements are crap.

 

[typicalcity]

That's the point. Many EPL players make in a week what our *best* players make in a year. We can't possibly expect to have great players if we can't pay them. Even the "regular" players at Man City make between $100k and $140k per week, and the absolutely lowest paid player makes $15k per week.

Think about that. The Man City player getting paid the absolute lowest salary makes more than all our players except for Mix (and it's pretty close). The next lowest paid player makes double what Mix makes. Third from the bottom makes $3.8 million.

Yes, Man City pays more than most other teams, but the point still stands.

Source: http://www.newsjit.com/manchester-city-players-salaries-20152016-full-squad/

Edit (to clarify):
- I converted pounds in the article to dollars
- They list salaries per week. Not sure if that's for 39 matches or for 52 weeks. I assumed they mean per match. If they really meant for 52 weeks then my yearly salary numbers will be that much higher as I'd've left out 1/3 of their salary.

No, the article I took those numbers from mentions the lowered salary numbers due to the incentives. The incentives are *not* included in the numbers I quoted as far as I can tell.

And just for fun, I looked up West Brom as a randomly selected club from the lower end of the table. Lowest paid player makes $250k per year. Second lowest makes $335k per year.

Also note, it looks like my quoted numbers for City are indeed too low as the West Brom article says they're per week and not per match.

So hey, nothing personal but your statements are a little bit crap, and not based on actual facts.

Source for West Brom numbers: http://www.celebritiesmoney.com/west-bromwich-albion-f-c-salaries-a-mid-to-lower-table-club/

Thanks Seth for putting him straight in all honesty I'd take any quoted figures with a pinch of salt.the trend at city has been to pay lower wages with very high bonus to get round ffpr

 

[william straiton]

Thanks Seth for putting him straight in all honesty I'd take any quoted figures with a pinch of salt.the trend at city has been to pay lower wages with very high bonus to get round ffpr

Put who straight lol?

You said many players are over 200k a week? I posted a link which quoted the alleged 10 highest paid players in the EPL. Only 8 where on 200k or over a week

You said most players where on 100k a week. His link shows that West Brom only had 2 or 3 players where over 50k

You said youngsters were on 50k. I don't think anyone needs to post a link to find out you are talking rubbish

And I was the one who was put straight lol

 

[hatt91]

So.... Uh.... About this Grabavoy guy...

 

[Seth]

So.... Uh.... About this Grabavoy guy...

Well, the point here is that Grabavoy, one of our "best" players, is paid $220k per year, and then several of us said the league can't really improve much if we don't pay higher salaries as we won't get any of the good players.

The connection here is that West Brom's lowest paid player makes $250k per year. So a bottom end of the table team's worst paid player in the EPL makes more than one our our highest paid players.

*That's* the point.

 

[typicalcity]

Put who straight lol?

You said many players are over 200k a week? I posted a link which quoted the alleged 10 highest paid players in the EPL. Only 8 where on 200k or over a week

You said most players where on 100k a week. His link shows that West Brom only had 2 or 3 players where over 50k

You said youngsters were on 50k. I don't think anyone needs to post a link to find out you are talking rubbish

And I was the one who was put straight lol

The article you posted is way out of date rvp dimaria who do they play for ?toure debryne sterling aguero Silva all on £200k at city
I said most decent players are on £100k then you quote figures from wba a relegation team ?
If you don't think decent youngsters are on £50k a week I give up .
Utd Chelsea Liverpool arsenal spurs and city pay daft money if you think different you are sadly deluded

 

[typicalcity]

Well, the point here is that Grabavoy, one of our "best" players, is paid $220k per year, and then several of us said the league can't really improve much if we don't pay higher salaries as we won't get any of the good players.

The connection here is that West Brom's lowest paid player makes $250k per year. So a bottom end of the table team's worst paid player in the EPL makes more than one our our highest paid players.

*That's* the point.

In fairness the salary cap suits most club owners as they don't have to put their hands in their pockets to make their teams competive.imagine if nycfc asked the league to remove the cap every other team would vote to block it.

 

[Seth]

In fairness the salary cap suits most club owners as they don't have to put their hands in their pockets to make their teams competive.imagine if nycfc asked the league to remove the cap every other team would vote to block it.

Agree with you, and totally understand what you're saying. And the reason I picked West Brom was to show that even a team that's not that good still pays it's worst players more than we pay our best.

If you don't think decent youngsters are on £50k a week I give up

Again, no disagreement here. But *our* "decent youngsters" don't even get that much per *year*.

 

[Falastur]

Frankly I take most articles about PL clubs' wages with a pinch of salt, because how many clubs seriously have a bad enough leak that the press knows everyone's salary to the penny? The press are well known for blowing salary figures way out of proportion. The only figures you can really trust are the overall salary totals, since they are verifiable in the company accounts.

Also, I acknowledge that you've both calmed down slightly in the last few posts, but keep it civil or not at all please, guys. If you can't keep your tone neutral then you're probably not going to convince anyone of your point anyway.

 

[typicalcity]

Agree with you, and totally understand what you're saying. And the reason I picked West Brom was to show that even a team that's not that good still pays it's worst players more than we pay our best.


Again, no disagreement here. But *our* "decent youngsters" don't even get that much per *year*.

Out of interest what pays more in the states for a top player NFL or baseball and what sort of wages do a top player get paid is that more than EPL for example ?

 

[Seth]

Out of interest what pays more in the states for a top player NFL or baseball and what sort of wages do a top player get paid is that more than EPL for example ?

Minimum salary in baseball is $507k per year. That's the *minimum*!

David Wright on the Mets gets $19 million per year, which is the highest on the team. Most are in the $2million to $7million range, with the younger players between the minimum and $1million. The Mets payroll is actually in the bottom half of the league.

Not sure about the NFL but I'll look it up.

Source:
http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/info/faq.jsp#minimum
http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/salaries/_/name/nym/new-york-mets

 

[typicalcity]

Minimum salary in baseball is $507k per year. That's the *minimum*!

David Wright on the Mets gets $19 million per year, which is the highest on the team. Most are in the $2million to $7million range, with the younger players between the minimum and $1million. The Mets payroll is actually in the bottom half of the league.

Not sure about the NFL but I'll look it up.

Source:
http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/info/faq.jsp#minimum
http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/salaries/_/name/nym/new-york-mets

So about the same as a top EPL team if the Mets pay low then .assume the Yankees will be a top payer then ?