@lognar: or the gate money, or the TV rights, or the sales, or the audience. Football generates a lot of money, I've always wondered why people don't want it to go direct to the players.
Yeah I was just messing around. A 16-second clip used in marketing for a living legend and one of the all time greats of our sport... With literally one spectator (who probably didn't pay to watch!)
@AlanMck: Obviously doesn't generate quite enough when premiership clubs are applying for government grants to pay their back room staff though. Piss taking bastards.
Yeah but there is no simple answer to that. The market sets the value of each worker based on their skillset. It is a bit rich to hear about these £18000 a year workers not getting paid on the same page as players crying about being forced into a 30% pay cut but... the players are in demand. Office workers not so much. People want to pay £100 a game to see top players... not office workers. In short yes, the clubs should be paying back room staff. They should also be paying players in full... or putting them on furlough. Richard Branson with his $4.6bn fortune should be paying his workers too, instead of asking taxpayers to do it for him.
@jaame: it's not tax payers money though, it's literally the Bank of England printing money. I agree with you in principle but that's not how the scheme was set up.
He defenetly made faster an straight rocky plus drop line waay wayy than anyonelse in this race... but those drifting high speed I give the credit to Sam.
Richard Branson with his $4.6bn fortune should be paying his workers too, instead of asking taxpayers to do it for him.