Double Standards?

[1959_60]

Morning All!

We don't seem to have an ongoing argument going at the moment, so here goes.

I would say that the majority of us think that high flying company directors are getting far too much money whilst the people who do the work at the coal face are not being rewarded enough.
The argument that "it is a competitive market" doesn't wash with us.

Looking at the Sean Dyche to Everton threads, it seems that we would be happy to pay him £££ to keep him - if money was the issue. After all, "it is a competitive market" and we have to pay him the going rate.
The same could be said about recruiting, and keeping, our key players.

Yet the people who finance our club (supporters and people who subscribe to SKY etc) are generally not getting big pay rises.

Football and the high finance areas of our economy are very similar in many ways. "Too much money washing about" we sometimes hear about footy - but this is the same with corporate markets too.

Are we guilty of double standards here because we perceive that Burnley FC is OUR team?

[sinkov]

Good morning 59-60.

Personally I don't really buy into the argument you're making. Certainly there are fat cat directors creaming off more than they should, others, whose talents and business acumen add so much to the value of the company, get their rewards, huge rewards admittedly but I've no problem with that. There are others creaming off more than they're entitled to that annoys me more, those running the big, now politically motivated charities, numerous NGOs and public bodies. A fine example is the bureaucracy running the NHS, the various NHS trusts where lethal inefficiency is well rewarded with huge salaries, gold plated pensions and the ability to be sacked from one sinecure to walk straight into another. It's not just the private sector taking the piss out of the working man, indeed I'd say the piss taking is far more prevalent in the public sector and it certainly annoys me more.

Difficult to make any correlation with the wacky world of football finance imo, where our club appears to be an oasis of sanity in a desert of lunacy. It still amazes me, although perhaps I shouldn't be amazed, that so much of the huge amounts of cash thrown at the game by the TV companies is allowed to be squandered on ridiculously high wages and agents fees, while the vast majority of clubs run at a loss and are in financial difficulty. It's appalling governance that tolerates this state of affairs, perhaps some of those fat cat company directors from the private sector should be brought in to sort it out.

Back to your original premise that us Burnley fans are operating double standards, can't speak for others, but in my case I don't think I am, I don't object to anyone making as much money as they can from their occupation, providing it's lawful, whether in football or business, and I expect our board to pay Dyche a sum commensurate with his ability to keep us in a division guaranteeing a turnover in excess of £120m a year.

[Altobelli]

Morning 59_60

Not sure that I'm grasping your OP correctly or not, but here goes, right or wrong.

I'm sure Sean Dyche's salary is at least the £2 Million a year mark plus bonus payments, with some of our players on £1.8 Million a year I cannot see Sean on less.

In any job there are 3 feelings IMO, you like the job, you don't like the job, or you do it because there is nothing better that would suit you, Football is a different animal if employed in it in some capacity, its a joyful sport that most enjoy.

Sean Dyche is at a good place, he seems to enjoys his day's at BFC, should have no money worries, and has a plan to raise BFC to a higher standard, so the only thing that will make Sean Dyche leave BFC at the moment is his own ambition to better himself with a bigger Club, which is the thought of many folk but not mine and hopefully not Sean's.

"Yet the people who finance our club (supporters and people who subscribe to SKY etc) are generally not getting big pay rises".

I don't understand this statement, we the supporters and Sky subscibers are the mugs who are always taken for granted.

I feel the competitive market you speak of has not changed in many years, there is always money out there for Company Directors and the like and those on the coal face who help them make their Millions are the cannon fodder and always will be, the old saying the rich get richer and the poor poorer will always be there and the gap will grow.

Burnley are in the Rich league now, but cannot compete like most of the others and have to cut their cloth accordingly as you probably know, we are still a selling Club to a certain extent.

Again maybe its because I'm getting old and losing my marbles but I don't understand your last line double standards ?

[1959_60]

Morning Sinkov.

I hate to admit it, but we are on the same page on this issue.

Some people would tax the high earners, and Sean Dyche and a lot of our players would suffer here. They would also massively increase taxes on successful businesses, again, Burnley fall into this category.
Yet these same people understand the need to pay "the going rate" in order to attract and retain our talent.

Can't have it both ways, eh?

The counter argument could be that if every club/player/manager was highly taxed then things would balance out. Well, it IS a competitive market and these individuals would be tempted on to the continent to ply their trade. Same argument with our talent at the top of our successful businesses.

BT?

[1959_60]

Morning Alto!

I am making the point about the "fat cats" as we like to call them at the top of corporate businesses (or, as Sinkov said, public services) earning £millions a year. Many of us don't think they should be paid so much. Yet we have no problem with offering Sean Dyche or our top players (our very own "fat cats") £millions in order to attract/retain them.

Yes, I am sure that Sean and the lads love their jobs. But so do these other people in their jobs.

I see close parallels with the footy industry and corporate business - why do we allow our footballers/managers to earn fortunes whilst we don't want to see our talent in other industries be equally rewarded?

I think that we understand and study the footy industry much more than, say, the financial services industry, but they are very similar and based on key people at the top.

[Altobelli]

Its a very uneven playing field 59_60, and don't get me started on the NHS as I'd be here all day.

I see similar parallels with big business and Football in that most are guilty in some way or the other of feathering their own nests rather than sharing the love (money), The Oyston's at Blackpool pocketing nearly all of their Premier League prize money, Mike Ashley the Newcastle owner paying sweat shop wages for his workers in his sporting goods business and I'm sure there are many others who are doing the same if not worse, and as you'd probably guess with the history of my posts I hold Burnley's own Chairmen and Directors of sweetening their own Bank accounts at the expense of BFC.

[sinkov]

The counter argument could be that if every club/player/manager was highly taxed then things would balance out.

Sorry 59-60 I am digressing slightly, it's just that imo our admittedly well paid players and managers are taxed highly enough as it is. On top of a 45% rate of income tax they pay NI contributions, like the rest of us they pay fuel duty, and VAT on purchases, the more their wags spend, the more the exchequer rakes in. Imo the government has no business trying to confiscate any more of it's citizens own cash than it currently does, they take plenty as it is, the problem is they're not too clever at using the billions they already do lift out of our pockets.

[Norder]

.




did the majority of the populace care that Proximo reaped the rewards.....poor Maximus.