Villified and Venerated - but why ?

[Butts]

It seems to me that in times of recession certain people making a lot of money are venerated (Footballers, Film Stars, Musicians etc) yet others are vilified (Bankers, Energy Chiefs, Businessmen).

If a business man is referred to as a "fat cat" why are film stars seemingly excluded from this description when they are often making more money for arguably less responsibility.

When Ed Milliband talks about hitting "fat cats" by raising the rate of income tax to 50p why does he never use a footballer as an example?

Seems like double standards to me

 

[transmanche]

When Ed Milliband talks about hitting "fat cats" by raising the rate of income tax to 50p why does he never use a footballer as an example?

And why is when a footballer's astronomical wages are discussed, it's always the weekly equivalent amount that's used.

(Most people these days are paid monthly and I doubt many of them even consider what their weekly equivalent earnings are.)

A recent example being Wayne Rooney's "£300k per week". Is that because it doesn't sound as obscene as "£15.6 million a year"?

 

[Butts]

And why is when a footballer's astronomical wages are discussed, it's always the weekly equivalent amount that's used.

(Most people these days are paid monthly and I doubt many of them even consider what their weekly equivalent earnings are.)

A recent example being Wayne Rooney's "£300k per week". Is that because it doesn't sound as obscene as "£15.6 million a year"?

Why is he not considered a "fat cat" in times of recession (or at any time come to that?) In a lot of businesses the comparison is made of the ratio between the top earners and bottom -ie 20:1 or whatever. I dread to think what it would be in this case.

 

[bb21]

A recent example being Wayne Rooney's "£300k per week". Is that because it doesn't sound as obscene as "£15.6 million a year"?

For dramatic effects really.

I read it somewhere that most people have no concept of magnitude when a number gets beyond a certain size, and this can quite often be as low as 10k or 100k for some. Anything bigger just becomes "a big number".

So "earning a lot of money per year" is nowhere as effective and headline grabbing as "earning a lot of money each week".

 

[transmanche]

Why is he not considered a "fat cat" in times of recession (or at any time come to that?)

I think he is considered such; but if you are a supporter of Man Utd (or England), when he does his job well it brings you a lot of pleasure and joy.

The difference is simple: people don't turn up at Canary Wharf on a Monday morning to 'support' Barclays and cheer on their favourite bankers...

 

[SS4]

Bankers and Energy Chiefs are profiteering off services we all have to use. The former were (mostly) bailed out by the taxpayer without consent causing a decent part of the austerity that the poorest in society are bearing the brunt of whereas those who caused it get away scot free

On the contrary Joe Bloggs does not have to contribute to a premier league footballer's or a musician/actor's salary - one can choose not to buy Sky, not to go to a game.

 

[EM2]

Wayne Rooney (and the others mentioned) make money for their employers, whether that be a football club, a film studio or a TV channel without it majorly impacting negatively on the day-to-day life of the ordinary person
Bankers, energy chiefs etc. are paid massive amounts of money even when they fail (see RBS paying bonuses of £576 million despite the company making a loss of £8.2 billion) or when their company's huge profits are made at the expense of their customers (such as the stories of choosing between heating and eating).

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I may be unpopular for this view, but I don't have much of a problem with banker's bonuses. Those who work on the trading floors or as stockbrokers have horrifically long and very stressful days. I don't begrudge them a fairly large amount of money in return for that (of course, the money does become obscenely large sometimes). It's not a lifestyle I could do.

 

[jon0844]

I agree. But I prefer the idea of bonuses paid as a result of performance over a longer period of time. And under no circumstances can a company saving money through closures/redundancy consider that a 'profit' by which to pay a bonus to others.

Bonuses can be good to offer incentives and, in theory, reduce standard rates of pay for high earners.

 

[Bevan Price]

Not entirely true. In my opinion, a lot of footballers are grossly overpaid prima donnas who receive a fortune even if they play rubbish. And Murdoch / Sky money is responsible for making excessive funds available for absurd transfer fees & wages. How many people really NEED £ millions per year ?

Likewise, a few "big names" in the entertainment industry get paid a fortune, whilst many others struggle to survive.

 

[Johnuk123]

How many people really NEED £ millions per year ?

Me ...

 

[bb21]

Not entirely true. In my opinion, a lot of footballers are grossly overpaid prima donnas who receive a fortune even if they play rubbish. And Murdoch / Sky money is responsible for making excessive funds available for absurd transfer fees & wages. How many people really NEED £ millions per year ?

Likewise, a few "big names" in the entertainment industry get paid a fortune, whilst many others struggle to survive.

Exactly.

Just have a look around the top tier to see how many players got lucrative contracts (by the standards of a layman) because they were seen to have "potential" who then turn out to be utter garbage.

People begrudge bankers, but what would the country become without the financial sector?

I don't begrudge anyone (OK, perhaps football agents a little.) for making loads of money. If you are also capable, join them.

 

[SS4]

Not entirely true. In my opinion, a lot of footballers are grossly overpaid prima donnas who receive a fortune even if they play rubbish. And Murdoch / Sky money is responsible for making excessive funds available for absurd transfer fees & wages. How many people really NEED £ millions per year ?

Likewise, a few "big names" in the entertainment industry get paid a fortune, whilst many others struggle to survive.

Part of a footballer's wages is going to act as a pension though. How many top players play fast 35? Nowadays a lot of players seem to enter the system at an early age and I wonder just how many of them have the life skills to work once their playing careers are over. A top footballer (ie one earning a fortune) will also have next to no privacy outside his own four walls during (and maybe after) his career.

 

[Oswyntail]

Part of a footballer's wages is going to act as a pension though. How many top players play fast 35? Nowadays a lot of players seem to enter the system at an early age and I wonder just how many of them have the life skills to work once their playing careers are over. A top footballer (ie one earning a fortune) will also have next to no privacy outside his own four walls during (and maybe after) his career.

Sorry, but one can only respond "Ah diddums". They go into a job knowing it will last only 17 years max. So they will need a second career. Many people start a second career at 35 or later, without the benefit of a vast sum paid during their previous career. And, if they don't have the life skills, then let them compete with the others who don't - don't cushion them with overpayment early on. And do you really think someone like Rooney is losing £40,000 worth of privacy a day?
And if anyone fondly believes that non-football-fans like me are not affected by the inflated sums, they just don't know how business works. Even Sky will have a certain amount of cross-subsidy at work to draw in the mugs.

 

[EM2]

Sorry, but one can only respond "Ah diddums". They go into a job knowing it will last only 17 years max.

They also know that that career can be over in the blink of an eye. I doubt there are many bankers or CEOs that run that risk, unless it's through their own stupidity.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

The difference is simple: people don't turn up at Canary Wharf on a Monday morning to 'support' Barclays and cheer on their favourite bankers...

This made me laugh....it would be quite surreal if we did!

 

[transmanche]

And if anyone fondly believes that non-football-fans like me are not affected by the inflated sums, they just don't know how business works. Even Sky will have a certain amount of cross-subsidy at work to draw in the mugs.

Don't forget the additional cost to the consumer of products that sponsor competitions, sponsor Sky/BT Sport programmes, or advertise on Sky/BT Sport or at football grounds.

 

[Oswyntail]

They also know that that career can be over in the blink of an eye. I doubt there are many bankers or CEOs that run that risk, unless it's through their own stupidity.

But that simply means they have to start their second career early. And even "bankers and CEOs" can be made redundant - incidentally, something that rarely happens to top footballers, as they are "assets" rather than employees, and are insured as such.

 

[transmanche]

But that simply means they have to start their second career early.

Exactly. A good example is the late Sir Tom Finney, whose Dad told him to serve his plumbing apprenticeship - and thus he ran a successful plumbing business after retiring from football.

And I'm just about to embark on my fourth separate career. I'm sure that's true for many people these days who don't fancy doing the same thing (or working in the same industry) for 20+ years.

 

[SS4]

Sorry, but one can only respond "Ah diddums". They go into a job knowing it will last only 17 years max. So they will need a second career. Many people start a second career at 35 or later, without the benefit of a vast sum paid during their previous career. And, if they don't have the life skills, then let them compete with the others who don't - don't cushion them with overpayment early on. And do you really think someone like Rooney is losing £40,000 worth of privacy a day?
And if anyone fondly believes that non-football-fans like me are not affected by the inflated sums, they just don't know how business works. Even Sky will have a certain amount of cross-subsidy at work to draw in the mugs.

Of course they go into the game knowing that but ignore it until it's too late. I also don't think you can put a monetary value on your privacy and I'd be surprised if they all knew what it entailed when they signed up.

 

[Amberley54]

But that simply means they have to start their second career early. And even "bankers and CEOs" can be made redundant - incidentally, something that rarely happens to top footballers, as they are "assets" rather than employees, and are insured as such.

However, that is not always the case in lower leagues.

At least Wayne Rooney occasionally pops down to the Moss Rose to watch macclesfield Town, so we get his ticket money two or three times a season - so at least some of his £million new contract will trickle down to grass roots football.

 

[Donny Dave]

They also know that that career can be over in the blink of an eye.

But that simply means they have to start their second career early. And even "bankers and CEOs" can be made redundant - incidentally, something that rarely happens to top footballers, as they are "assets" rather than employees, and are insured as such.

If a footballer's career is cut short, 99 times out of a hundred, it's because of a bad injury. If that happens close to the end of the season and they are out of contract in the summer, then it will be a struggle.

It has happened as well. Paul Mudd was a left back for Scunthorpe United quite a few years ago. With about 6 weeks to go before the end of the season, he sustained a badly broken leg in a 50/50 challenge, and he was also out of contract at the end of the season. It ultimately led to his retirement, and because of his injury, he couldn't get a job for a while. Also, Peter Morrison (who was 21 (I think)) was the victim of a malicious 2 footed challenge in a Scunthorpe reserve game. He had to retire a couple of weeks later. Both of those happened while Scunthorpe were in League 2 (third division as it was known then), and were not on huge money ....

 

[Butts]

Bankers and Energy Chiefs are profiteering off services we all have to use. The former were (mostly) bailed out by the taxpayer without consent causing a decent part of the austerity that the poorest in society are bearing the brunt of whereas those who caused it get away scot free

On the contrary Joe Bloggs does not have to contribute to a premier league footballer's or a musician/actor's salary - one can choose not to buy Sky, not to go to a game.

Are you in favour of Banks and Energy Companies all being under State Ownership ?

You are probably to young to remember "don't tell sid" but a lot of members of the public subscribed to capitalism with the purchase of shares at the time of Gas privatisation.

Strange how there don't seem to be so many complaints about BT or SKY jacking prices up every year.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wayne Rooney (and the others mentioned) make money for their employers, whether that be a football club, a film studio or a TV channel without it majorly impacting negatively on the day-to-day life of the ordinary person
Bankers, energy chiefs etc. are paid massive amounts of money even when they fail (see RBS paying bonuses of £576 million despite the company making a loss of £8.2 billion) or when their company's huge profits are made at the expense of their customers (such as the stories of choosing between heating and eating).

This would seem to apply to Football as well - look at the payoffs in the millions received by failing managers every year.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I may be unpopular for this view, but I don't have much of a problem with banker's bonuses. Those who work on the trading floors or as stockbrokers have horrifically long and very stressful days. I don't begrudge them a fairly large amount of money in return for that (of course, the money does become obscenely large sometimes). It's not a lifestyle I could do.

Quid pro Quo ....

I find myself in agreement with Ralph !!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree. But I prefer the idea of bonuses paid as a result of performance over a longer period of time. And under no circumstances can a company saving money through closures/redundancy consider that a 'profit' by which to pay a bonus to others.

Bonuses can be good to offer incentives and, in theory, reduce standard rates of pay for high earners.

What should also be borne in mind is that sometimes bonuses can be paid when you lose less than you are planned to
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They also know that that career can be over in the blink of an eye. I doubt there are many bankers or CEOs that run that risk, unless it's through their own stupidity.

And I'm sure as an asset of the club they are insured as such and will not suffer any financial hardship.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course they go into the game knowing that but ignore it until it's too late. I also don't think you can put a monetary value on your privacy and I'd be surprised if they all knew what it entailed when they signed up.

If someone want's to pay me £300,000 per week I'll give it a go
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Exactly.

Just have a look around the top tier to see how many players got lucrative contracts (by the standards of a layman) because they were seen to have "potential" who then turn out to be utter garbage.

People begrudge bankers, but what would the country become without the financial sector?

Ask SS4 ih he knows the difference between GDP and GNP - "Invisible Earnings" anyone :roll:

 

[EM2]

This would seem to apply to Football as well - look at the payoffs in the millions received by failing managers every year.

With the rather major difference that the bankers and CEOs are still in a job, even after failing spectacularly.

And I'm sure as an asset of the club they are insured as such and will not suffer any financial hardship.

The club insures the asset, and therefore gets any insurance payout. You might like to have a chat with Dean Ashton, who has said a number of times that without what he had saved and invested from his playing career, he'd be almost destitute.
And that's without the fact that he's had to have his ankle bones fused together and now cannot flex his ankle at all. That was the best option, by the way...

 

[Oswyntail]

If a footballer's career is cut short, 99 times out of a hundred, it's because of a bad injury. If that happens close to the end of the season and they are out of contract in the summer, then it will be a struggle.
.......

I understand that, but that makes it all the more important to plan ahead, for possible career change and injury. Or are you saying that young people go into the sport without knowing any of this - in which case the popular image of the dim footballer is quite realistic? I presume that most professional footballers are adults, responsible for their own lives and their own choices, just like train drivers, computer analysts, opera singers. Why should they be immunised against the realities of the world?

....You are probably to young to remember "don't tell sid" ....

Ah, the unintentional irony - it was actually "If you see Sid, tell him"

 

[maniacmartin]

Companies have an obligation to deliver the best result for their shareholders. That is the whole point of a company. If the government didn't want energy companies to be profiting, then they should not have privatised the sector. I know I'd be pretty annoyed if I held shares in a company that decided to deliberately generate much lower profits.

 

[TheKnightWho]

For dramatic effects really.

I read it somewhere that most people have no concept of magnitude when a number gets beyond a certain size, and this can quite often be as low as 10k or 100k for some. Anything bigger just becomes "a big number".

So "earning a lot of money per year" is nowhere as effective and headline grabbing as "earning a lot of money each week".

This is exactly why headlines such as "£10m wasted on benefits tourism" are so successful, because to most people that seems like a really large amount of money. As part of the government's £700bn budget it's effectively negligible, however.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With the rather major difference that the bankers and CEOs are still in a job, even after failing spectacularly.

This is a bit of a misconception. You'll find this is the case for the CEOs and people right at the top (because they're difficult to get rid of and have influence over those who could fire them), but the average banker will quickly find himself without a job if he's losing loads of money. An employer quite clearly doesn't want someone who does that.

 

[transmanche]

For dramatic effects really.

I read it somewhere that most people have no concept of magnitude when a number gets beyond a certain size, and this can quite often be as low as 10k or 100k for some. Anything bigger just becomes "a big number".

So "earning a lot of money per year" is nowhere as effective and headline grabbing as "earning a lot of money each week".

Maybe my brain works differently! Because for me whilst £300k per week sounds a lot, it doesn't fit any frame of reference. Whereas £15.6 million a year sounds a f***ing lot and I can see how many times my annual salary it is!

It's strange that they don't quote bankers/CEOs/etc salaries or bonuses as weekly equivalents though: there they seem to go for the annual/total amount...

 

[EM2]

... the average banker will quickly find himself without a job if he's losing loads of money. An employer quite clearly doesn't want someone who does that.

If he's losing so much that he's likely to be fired, he's unlikely to get a bonus.

 

[meridian2]

It seems to me that in times of recession certain people making a lot of money are venerated (Footballers, Film Stars, Musicians etc) yet others are vilified (Bankers, Energy Chiefs, Businessmen).

If a business man is referred to as a "fat cat" why are film stars seemingly excluded from this description when they are often making more money for arguably less responsibility.

When Ed Milliband talks about hitting "fat cats" by raising the rate of income tax to 50p why does he never use a footballer as an example?

Seems like double standards to me

Not double-standards at all; the term 'fat cat' was coined by the press to question the logic of bankers receiving huge salaries, whilst at the same time, totally ignoring the responsibilities they have. What most of them (the press) do is try and justify a banker's 'bonus' on their 'performance'. A banker's 'performance' is much more than individual responsibility. Being involved in banking is a lot like managing a football team. Football is all about the results of the team; banking is all about the results of trading, the shares index etc. In other words, it's a 'high-risk' job and as such, it has to be proportionally rewarded. If they get it wrong, the ramifications are felt beyond the City/Wall Street (the prime example being the recent financial crisis), and they are almost always 'vilified' by the media for their 'irresponsibility'. But what the media don't understand are that bankers are within an industry that is result-dependent, and when they get it right they leave them alone and when they don't, we have arguments that ultimately lead back to the same 'old chestnut' about their salaries and bonuses. It is an industry that is vital to the economy of our country, and whether we like it or not, they will continue to receive high salaries which I believe are correct given they are proportionate to the 'risk/reward' ratio of their industry.