Man United - Roy Keane. Violent prick.
Liverpool - Carragher. Annoying prick.
Chelsea - Terry. Racist prick
Man City - Joe Hart. Overrated prick.
Spurs - Dele Alli. Dirty prick.
Everton - Fellaini. Elbowy prick.
Leicester City - Maguire. Gormless prick.
Newcastle United - Barton. Criminal prick.
West Ham - Scott Parker. Tedious prick
Leeds - Bowyer. Fucking prick.
Aston Villa - Barry. Boring prick.
Southampton - Ox. Opinionated prick.

@Clrnce Walker, Robertson, Young, Bowyer... absolute poster boys for this.

The Spurs one is hard. Rose, Vertonghen, Bale, Lamela and Adebayor are all cheats, as divers and foul commiters. Dele's drop off in relevancy puts him behind one of those for me.

@[deleted] Joe Hart seems like a good soul to me, even if he dropped off. Seemed to get along well with the Arsenal boys in the England camp. You could tell Wenger really wanted to bring him over

No player ever tilted me quite like Ruud van Nistelrooy.

Man United - Van Nistelrooy feels like the right choice, Keane as well, but I just could not abide Gary Neville as a player.
Liverpool - Stevie Me. What player has ever been more annoying?
Chelsea - Obviously John Terry.
Man City - Craig Bellamy. Gobshite.
Spurs - Dele Alli is like the culmination of all the scum that's risen to their first team. Highest punchability factor of any footballer ever to stain the pitch with their presence.
Everton - Wayne fucking Rooney.
Leicester City - Robbie Savage. Diving idiot. Also, that FA Cup replay loss on penalties with Mike Riley officiating, right between thrashing them in both league games, was annoying.
Newcastle United - Michael Owen. Don't have to explain myself.
West Ham - Kevin Nolan. Clogging cheat.
Leeds - Bowyer. Bad person.
Aston Villa - Ashley Young. His consistent violence on the pitch somehow goes unnoticed in the media.
Southampton - Rory Delap. Garbage footballer who could only play with his hands. Any excuse to flash his abs, it's his Wikipedia photo ffs.

Fun game. The favourite player one is hard so I'll go for the hated one.

Man United - So many choices it's difficult to go with 1. Nevilles, Keane, Rooney etc but would have to go for Van Nistelrooy at the top of the list.
Liverpool - Suarez
Chelsea - Terry, or Costa
Man City - Barton
Spurs - Dele Alli
Everton - Rooney since he was pipped for the United spot.
Leicester City - Maguire
Newcastle United - Barton - can pick him again right? Remember his first appearance after coming out of prison was coming on as a sub against us and he immediately tried to break Nasri's leg and got up smiling and laughing about it, then later on Nasri got him back and scythed him down from behind.
West Ham - Can I go for Pardew? Otherwise Bowyer.
Leeds - Bowyer (he'd been in for a shout for Newcastle too).
Aston Villa - Ashley Young.
Southampton - Hard one, can't think of anyone that's riled me up that much from them. Have to say Ox then.

Severe lack of Sherringham on these lists

Haha true forgot him! Maybe add him as my West Ham pick.

The Maguire shout is great though. Probably the dirtiest player in the league right now besides Robertson. Every single contact or check is illegal.

He totally tried to break Aguero but ended up getting totally embarrassed. Top moment.

How do you folks feel about the prospect of football players (even managers) taking pay cuts? are there moral grounds just based on their wealth? How about the relative wealth of executives?   Think we'll hear some big news today from the FA.

KingslandBarge wrote:

How do you folks feel about the prospect of football players (even managers) taking pay cuts? are there moral grounds just based on their wealth? How about the relative wealth of executives?   Think we'll hear some big news today from the FA.

I don't care. Players aren't any where near as rich as owners and other billionaires to the point I think it'd just be for optics.

Its been quite an issue with Real Madrid, Juventus and Barcelona funnily enough, and I think it could end up being a tension here soon. You mean it would be optics on the part of club or the players to demonstrate belt tightening through player wage cuts?

KingslandBarge wrote:

Its been quite an issue with Real Madrid, Juventus and Barcelona funnily enough, and I think it could end up being a tension here soon. You mean it would be optics on the part of club or the players to demonstrate belt tightening through player wage cuts?

I don't see why the players should take a hit. It doesn't make any sense. Obviously they earn more than they should but owners, especially at the top of the Premier League, could easily pay the rest of their staff during the crisis without cutting players wages.

Yeah if I think in terms of efficient resource distribution then its owners who should be compensating, much more than player wage cuts. I also think from a executive standpoint, this is when you demonstrate your leadership, your values and some capacity to nurture and protect your ship.

However if I think in terms of business management and behavior of business owners through conventions of commerce, the expectation is for the business owner to adjust his resources without an obligation to divert his/her personal wealth. If people in other industries are doing this, should football be held to a different standard? Finally, I think the optics of player wage cuts does have a marginal benefit in terms of societal morale. It hits differently.

I think players should consider taking a cut. Granted there are billionaires in the world who should be doing more but that's another subject entirely. Players closely profit on their affinity with fans, build brands and, in many ways, claim to be one of the community. Even a token gesture of 10% would make a huge difference.

And the only reason the club can't directly dock their wages is because of the nature of their employment contract.

If the owner really can't then players should, but generally speaking and definitely for England that's rarely the case. The players are who actually produce the value added by football, the owners are literally leeches in the background doing nothing but supposedly carry the economic risk. Why would I ask Saka or Guendouzi to pay when the parasitic Kroenke clan have literally billions lying around.

I guess it's two questions in there. Obviously Kroenke should do a great many things and everyone would rather billionaires did more for society, pandemic or not.

But at times like this the PFA need to gauge which way the wind blows otherwise there will be a backlash and the majority won't direct it at the owners. It's a lot better to act now rather than be forced into it. Footballer salaries are a bit of a political and social punching bag, if the players themselves don't recognise it soon then they're being naive which is why if I was advising them, even a small cut would help and, more importantly, put further pressure on the likes of Levy.

Liverpool have joined Spuds and Newcastle in placing staff on furlough. I hope we dont follow suit, whether its within their rights to do so or not it looks really bad on a club which turns over millions and pays massive salaries to players.

Furloughing staff isn't really a big deal or immoral. It helps protects their jobs in the long term and the clubs can top up their salary to make sure they're still getting full pay.

Qwiss! wrote:
KingslandBarge wrote:

Its been quite an issue with Real Madrid, Juventus and Barcelona funnily enough, and I think it could end up being a tension here soon. You mean it would be optics on the part of club or the players to demonstrate belt tightening through player wage cuts?

I don't see why the players should take a hit. It doesn't make any sense. Obviously they earn more than they should but owners, especially at the top of the Premier League, could easily pay the rest of their staff during the crisis without cutting players wages.

I disagree here. The owners, more often than not billionaires, should absolutely be doing their part one way or another to help society, but I don't think it should be by subsidising the wages of millionaires. 

GooneriC wrote:

Liverpool have joined Spuds and Newcastle in placing staff on furlough. I hope we dont follow suit, whether its within their rights to do so or not it looks really bad on a club which turns over millions and pays massive salaries to players.

The whole problem is that the club isn't currently bringing in millions. What really matters is how much cash clubs have in their bank accounts.

If they have no cash value in their bank accounts then players should take a paycut since they are the ones not working instead of the non playing staffs

Again, going on furlough doesn't necessarily mean taking a pay cut.

I know, but it's immoral for rich clubs to put non paying staffs on govt payroll to save 80% of their wages when they obviously can afford that little money.

It’s not that easy.
I think the employees are probably the easiest people to let go off even if it is so distasteful. We might sit here and think, here is a club that makes £300m a year and they have a playing staff that eats up £150 to £200m of that. Why start with employees who take home £1000 each a month. I think contractually, it’s easiest to cut the low wage employees. You can probably cut them with a small 1-3 month payment that is effectively a rounding error. The players, on the other hand, are on contracts that probably have 2-3 years outstanding in average. Those are legal obligations. That along with any stadium payments and outstanding transfer payments are the big pain points for clubs.

And remember, on the opposite side of the income statement, the revenue has dried for everyone. Their revenue is all variable, and right now as things stand most of the player contract is fixed but the clubs are not getting the last 25% of match day revenue. They might have to pay back the last 25% of TV money as well, nor will they get merchandise sales (some of which might trigger a clawback on the biggest jersey contracts)

Yeah, so cutting 10% of one player for example can probably pay for 100 of those small time employees.

Like what Barca, Juve, Bayern all the top clubs are doing. Cutting 70% wages of players, staffs and managers to fund for this small time employees and donate the rest to help other clubs survive etc.

What you are saying makes logical sense. But that’s not an obligation. That was driven by the Juve players coming together and saying we are rich, let’s save this club and community. Do English clubs naturally have the relationships with their communities that the above clubs have? The speed at which various clubs and players were giving wages to other employees, donating their stadiums for relief etc., seems more pronounced in those countries.

There's companies who make billions who are putting staff on furlough. The club isn't making any match day income and likely won't be for months, then there's the prospect of having to give back or losing out on a huge chunk of TV money if the season isn't completed. That's before you take into account that many clubs like Arsenal already operate on a loss. If they don't put staff on furlough now it may be permanent redundancies later. As for the players, I'm almost certain they'll be taking a pay cut eventually anyway and many will probably be up for sale come the start of the transfer window, though I'm not sure there will be too many buyers.

What it does highlight - more than anything - is how terrible football is at a leadership decision. The FA, PFA etc should make it clear what they think is reasonable and proportionate and apply it evenly in return for possible concessions post crisis.

Instead, much like issues like racism, players and clubs have to solve it by themselves with little support.

goon wrote:

There's companies who make billions who are putting staff on furlough. The club isn't making any match day income and likely won't be for months, then there's the prospect of having to give back or losing out on a huge chunk of TV money if the season isn't completed. That's before you take into account that many clubs like Arsenal already operate on a loss. If they don't put staff on furlough now it may be permanent redundancies later. As for the players, I'm almost certain they'll be taking a pay cut eventually anyway and many will probably be up for sale come the start of the transfer window, though I'm not sure there will be too many buyers.

Absolutely, also the furlough scheme is only till the end of June anyway. You'd look stupid if you pay out of your own coffers for a couple of months and then turn to the gov when you need a lifeline only to see that they've withdrawn the scheme in the face of a deepening depression. The whole point of the scheme is to avoid layoffs for business in these sort of 'recreation' industries and, more pertinently, reduces the likelihood of permanent redundancies in the future which you may not hear about but will definitely happen over the next 12 months.

It's funny that Liverpool and Spurs can't afford to pay club staff for a few weeks, and expect the tax payers to cough up, but come the transfer window, they'll drop £30-£50m on a signing.

Ray wrote:

It's funny that Liverpool and Spurs can't afford to pay club staff for a few weeks, and expect the tax payers to cough up, but come the transfer window, they'll drop £30-£50m on a signing.

That’s cos they’ll be spending next year’s money. The optics look bad but that’s the state of the game. These guys are living day to day like drug dealers in Range Rovers and Gucci jackets

jones wrote:

Well said. It's very hard to feel any kind of sympathy for either the football clubs or the football millionaires who still earn millions just by sitting home, when normal people get to choose between temporary layoffs and permanent unemployment.

I guess my position when it comes to the football world in general is that we should just burn it all down. And then salt the earth for good measure.

Uefa will need to come out of this with some liquidity measures to improve ability to withstand shocks and to protect vulnerable staff. They can do things like

  • decrease the wage - revenue ratios
  • mandate a cash reserve that’s equivalent to some percentage of revenues
  • maybe even encourage football teams to increase investments / non-cash holdings etc., as a buffer
  • put clauses that allow reductions in player salaries under certain extraordinary circumstances- like a global pandemic

I can understand the unsavory things that football teams are doing now but it doesn’t mean they need to do them in future

Klaus wrote:
jones wrote:

Well said. It's very hard to feel any kind of sympathy for either the football clubs or the football millionaires who still earn millions just by sitting home, when normal people get to choose between temporary layoffs and permanent unemployment.

I guess my position when it comes to the football world in general is that we should just burn it all down. And then salt the earth for good measure.

Over the years football has meant less and less to me. It’s full of vile, ignorant and greedy folk.

Recent events have just highlighted how wrong the set up is.

Go watch Liverpool and Spurs spend millions when the transfer window eventually reopens...

They’ll lose fans during the recession. I think football makes the mistake of thinking that it’s a unique pastime, but it isn’t. The more Uefa rips apart the fabric of the game by making it expensive and inaccessible to the local fan, the more it changes the nature of the “product” and turns it into an entertainment that can be substituted with watching other sports and TV or playing video games, etc. And the more expensive it gets, the more exposed it becomes during economic crises and consumes need to rethink how many games they watch or shirts they buy.

I hope the next year hurts them. So they rethink it all.

Klaus wrote:
jones wrote:

Well said. It's very hard to feel any kind of sympathy for either the football clubs or the football millionaires who still earn millions just by sitting home, when normal people get to choose between temporary layoffs and permanent unemployment.

I guess my position when it comes to the football world in general is that we should just burn it all down. And then salt the earth for good measure.

Yup, in times of crisis you see the true side of human nature and people. You can understand Leyton Orient doing this, but Liverpool and Spurs who have hundred millions of revenue trying to use this to save costs so when season restart they can have big money transfers again is disgusting.

With 'Stay Home', 'Bring Back Our Girls', 'Me Too', may be even 'Black Lives Matter'...such a shame certain sheep (or wolf in sheep's clothing) feign virtue or blindly partake in social media trends when in reality they don't apply the principles they espouse or don't give a fuck. Its legitimately one of the biggest embarrassment to me. Seriously fantasize the like the rest of us bachelors.

I'm not sure the PL will ever be the same really.

This has just exposed football for what it really is, arrogant, overpaid players working for corporate vile clubs, and its pretty much all of them.

Not felt good about football for some years now, even our beautiful club lost a lot of its soul moving from Highbury to follow. the gravy train, but i'm not sure the business model is sustainable long term for the big clubs now.

I mean, we all knew it, but when you actually think about, its absurd...the money one average pl player earns a week is a 4 nurses salaries for a year. For what, exactly?

Ok, you can make the tax argument: they are paying into the economy etc but unfortunately many or probably nearly all have offshore accounts etc.

Football, of all things, seems utterly meaningless now.