€50m rejected for Torres - Will Chelsea give it to Burma and/or China instead please

Dudess wrote: »

It's unethical for one person to get £100,000 per week when most of it will just end up unused. But you know that's what my answer was gonna be. How is it not unethical?

Well for one simple economics. Surely if a person generates significantly more than £100,000 per week they should be paid at least that figure? ppl are always complaining about footballers wages as if footballers are paid charity. A player like Torres generates much more than his weekly wage each week. Would you prefer if football went back to the fifties and the wealthy owners imposed a miniscule maximum wage?

Plus footballers entertain people. Surely they are worthy of earning a wage that recognises the impact that they have on millions of ppl's lives.

There is literally billions of pounds floating around the Premiership. Should players not get a fair slice?

Also that is not even touching on the fact that many footballers come from very poor backgrounds. I would have thought that they should be applauded for making something of themselves.

And Dudess what in your opinion would be an ethical wage for somebody like Torres who generates hundreds of thousands of pounds for his club every week?

Dudess wrote: »

It's unethical for one person to get £100,000 per week when most of it will just end up unused. But you know that's what my answer was gonna be. How is it not unethical?

Dudess wrote: »

Every other business that makes the kind of money Chelsea does should give donations, yes.

Don't think Ive ever read such **** in all my life.

Dudess wrote: »

There's no point in using extremes. I never gave any indication I'd prefer something like that.

What has that got to do with how much they get paid? Objecting to them getting a ridiculous amount of money doesn't at all go hand in hand with objecting to them making something of themselves. I think it's fantastic that they've made something of themselves.

I wasn't using extremes. There are only two choices. Either footballers are free to cash in on their worth or they are subject to a maximimu wage so that the owners can make more profit.

Well my point about some footballers backgrounds is that they should be applauded for making all of those millions. They have maximised their talent and turned it into millions of pounds. I was merely reacting to your assertion that it was somehow unethical that footballers get paid something close to what they generate.

Oh and whilst the Op has a valid point that we should all probably try and donate more to good causes, the analogy with Chelsea having a bid for a footballer turned down and therefore being somehow morallly obliged to use that money to give to a charitable cause is naive to say the least.

That is why most ppl are ridiculing it imo. Like most other posters I don't see the correlation between Chelsea's transfer budget and providing aid to Burma or China.

Degsy wrote: »

Oh yeah,and multimillionaire humanitarian businessman Sir Bob Geldof.

because clearly to do any good in this world you have to forsake your own wealth.

As for this whole thread: zzzzzzz

bluedolphin wrote: »

Liverpool have rejected €50m for Torres. Will Chelsea please make a donation to Burma, where many more than 30,000 people are dead and 1.5million are left suffering? Or even to China, where more than 12,500 people are dead and so many thousands more affected? I don't mind where they donate it. I'm not picky about that at all. Just please, somewhere; anywhere.

Who are you to tell Abromovich what to do with his money? Why don't you send me a few bucks so I can buy a few car?

woooo232 wrote: »

Oh and whilst the Op has a valid point that we should all probably try and donate more to good causes, the analogy with Chelsea having a bid for a footballer turned down and therefore being somehow morallly obliged to use that money to give to a charitable cause is naive to say the least.

That is why most ppl are ridiculing it imo. Like most other posters I don't see the correlation between Chelsea's transfer budget and providing aid to Burma or China.

This is it in a nutshell. Her opening gambit is that if your bid for a revenue generating asset falls through you should give the money to charity, which is patently absurd.

Abramovich has already given massive wads of cash to a charity case. Chelsea Football Club. :pac:

growler wrote: »

(a) Burma has no history as a top class striker and (b) it wouldn't be possible to get in on the pitch (c) from what I've seen Burma is significantly slower than even Shevchenko

i think they should go for an established striker rather than trying to buy an asian country , particulalry those prone to natural disasters , its bad enough with Terry dislocating his elbow just before a champions league final but an earthquake or cyclone during such a crucual game would surely be very off putting for the rest of the chelsea squad and indeed the opposing players and all spectators.

I don't think the OP has really thought this out very well.

Totally agree, but surely this thread should have been moved to the Soccer forum, before people started to get the wrong end of the stick, that obviously happened here.

And onto the OT points of the thread.

Chelsea are investing in a player, they're not going off willy-nilly throwing money around just cos they want to. If they buy Torres for €50m they will recoop that money through increased Gate receipts, merchandise, etc. etc. etc. It's similar to a factory buying a new machine, that machine they expect to earn them money, similarly to Chelsea buying Torres

But onto the next point, why on earth would any company send money to a charity??

Do you people not understand that companies like Chelsea FC employ hundreds of people directly and thousands more indirectly, why on earth should any company donate money to charity. The money needs to stay where it is so all those people can stay in a job and the local economies and wider economies don't get completely fcuked. [Never mind the fact that Chelsea make losses every year, but they have a good CEO in there, and surely he can turn them around to not be reliant on Roman], but it's mental even talking about companies donating to charity. How would any of you feel if the company you worked for donated XXm to charity and then had to close up shop a few months later because their working capital is drained and they can't pay their creditors, thank god people like many here aren't in charge of any big companies.

Then people are giving out about Abramovich, he does donate to charity, but ones he wants to. Look up a place called Chukotka and see the work he has done. Not even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can fix everything in the world.

Dudess wrote: »

That's just being antagonistic. You know that's not what I meant and that they've still mountains of cash...

They don't, as has been pointed out they made a loss of £140m last year. You need to learn to seperate Roman Abramovich and Chelsea Football Club. It's just like any company investing in an asset. They expect to make a positive return on that investment to hopefully recoop some of the previous losses. I don't think they'll be able to recoop those losses if they go throwing money into the hands of the Burmese Junta.