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

javaboy

This makes for interesting reading http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2007-03-26-Chelsea-FC-near-bottom-of-charitable-donations-league

The Sparrow

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?

kevmy

Dudess wrote: »

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

Again Chelsea don't make money they usually lose loads of it. They are being bankrolled by Abramovich. If he pulled out tomoro the club would be bankrupt

Dennis the Stone

Sherifu wrote: »

I like cake.

You should donate 40% of your cake to Burma. Just post it off in an envelope.

Pompey Magnus

Won't somebody please think of the children?

Theresalwaysone

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

Ok, fair enough, I'm wrong. If the teams make that kind of money then there's no point in just leaving it sitting in the bank accounts. However, it's not unreasonable of the OP to point out how it would be bad form for the likes of Chelsea Football Club/Abramovich not to donate to China. And maybe they have done, but I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't. Some people are capable of absolutely vile greed. I just knew the OP would be ridiculed for the sake of being ridiculed. There's nothing wrong with what he/she said.

woooo232 wrote: »

Would you prefer if football went back to the fifties and the wealthy owners imposed a miniscule maximum wage?

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

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.

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.

Dudess

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

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

Are you serious? Ah I'd say you have! Anyway, why do you say that?

gucci

Would it spoil the fun if i suggested the offer was never made?

menoscemo

Dudess wrote: »

Objecting to them getting a ridiculous amount of money (much of which will go unused) doesn't at all go hand in hand with objecting to them making something of themselves.

Unused Money? What are you talking about? Any spare footballers cash is used for gambling, didn't you know that?

dsmythy

Maybe the question should be rephrased should Abramovich give 50 million to Burma? (never mind China they can afford it). Well that's up to him. It's his money! I'm sure he has given plenty to charitable causes without the need to pat his own back over it.

If we all went this way you could say everything is wrong. Did you buy a chocolate bar without feeling hungry? Shame on you! You could of bought food for a starving child with that money you wasted!

leninbenjamin

one might argue with their football academy and youth system they do more for the local area than any other local business of similar size. not to mention most clubs do lend their high profile to forward beneficial causes.

but then that wouldn't suit the arguments here would it?

Degsy

Football be damned.I wanna see that little cnunt Bono giving away his money to help the poor.Oh yeah,and multimillionaire humanitarian businessman Sir Bob Geldof.

The Sparrow

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.

homerjay2005

bluedolphin wrote: »

Quoted for accuracy. Where's the old rolleyes when you need him?

I didn't post the original post to lecture godliness; it was more a reflection of what the fúck is wrong with the world. €50m rejected for one football player at the same time that such an amount could make such a difference to so many people's lives. Yes, I know that that's the society in which we live; that there are rich and there are poor; but no one gives a damn. It's someone else's problem. Out of sight, out of mind, huh.

football teams do a massive amount of good work that goes un noticed in poor countries. and this bid/rejection never took place anyway.

zuutroy

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

Mr. CooL ICE

Bring back communism

FatherTed

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?

zuutroy

FatherTed wrote: »

Why don't you send me a few bucks so I can buy a few car?

Pfft...such greed...whats wrong with a donkey drawn wagon...you don't NEED anything more than that.

5ForKeeps

Chelsea should give it to the effort relief to Burma and China instead of wasting there time in trying to buy Torres, the man is a legend. They have 2 hopes Bob Hope and no hope. El Nino......

event

Dudess wrote: »

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

i think chelsea made a loss last year of £140 million

close to it anyway

so every company that make that much of a loss should give donations?

hmm

menoscemo

LordChessington wrote: »

Bring back communism

What do you mean? Football is the definition of a Marxist economy IMO. Footballers get paid for the money they themselves generate, and the big ugly 'capitalist' owners do not make a profit on the back of their work.
Karl would be proud.

jimbling

lol, i should read AH more often... such fun.

KnifeWRENCH

If Abroamovich donated 50 million to Burma, where would it go? To the suffering victims of Nargis to help them try and reclaim their lives? Or in the back pockets of the members of the Burmese junta?

Anyway I would hope that Abramovich and all other billionaires make sizeable contributions to charity. I don't think he needs to justify offering £50 million for a footballer when he knows that footballer will potentially bring more success to the club and make him even more money. It's just good business.

If he never gives a penny to charity then he's a selfish cnut, but I still don't think it's wrong for him to spen so much on football. Unfortunately, to succeed in football you generally need a lot of dosh behind you.

Dudess

event wrote: »

i think chelsea made a loss last year of £140 million

close to it anyway

so every company that make that much of a loss should give donations?

hmm

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

Earthhorse

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.

Ronan

Why would you give money to China? they are minted and could own the west.
Why would you give money to Burma? it would never reach the people who need it.

And good point about Chelsea, it is Abramovich not the club that has the money and he is willing to waste it... £16.2m for Bosingwa. Now that is a crime.

javaboy

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

FatherTed

zuutroy wrote: »

Pfft...such greed...whats wrong with a donkey drawn wagon...you don't NEED anything more than that.

Because I only have one car and my neighbour has two.

Ste05

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.

antodeco

All this talk of giving money to Chinese people has me hungry. Breast of chicken curry diced it is!

Ste05

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.

Degsy

Christ,talking about football is boring.Can we troll the thread and get it closed or summat?