UK time is: 22:20:39
Vital Login
Social Login

Choose your club

Other Sites

Network Navigation

Vital Partners

'If It's Football, It is Vital'

Report Abusive Comment

Thank you for the alert, before you submit it, PLEASE make sure it is a worthy alert.

We canít cater for whether you like another user or not, and please do bear in mind all our editors are in full time jobs and as an independent network, we are low on resources. Valid alerts are very welcome, please make sure your alert is valid!

If you require an answer, please make sure that your registered email is a current one. Please note we canít guarantee that we will respond to every alert but every alert will be looked at.

We thank you for your help in keeping Vital the leading place for sports fans views.


Please enter a category.
spursex - well if we are so in line with market pay, why are we struggling to attract the very best players? As I understand it, a lot of a Spurs player's compensation is incentivised, ie if the team win this, you get that bonus. The problem is that if the team struggle for whatever reason (like Chelsea 2 years ago), most players won't get their bonuses and they'll be making a fraction of what they'd be making elsewhere. Essentially, players are getting paid (or not) based on something they only have limited control over (ie team results), and the mistakes of one player (say a goalkeeper having a catastrophic season) could negatively impact the salaries of all. As a prospective candidate, I would never join any organisation offering that sort of compensation. Our pay structure depends on so many if and buts that we are simply not competitive. Your previous experience at an agency would surely confirm that: if one of your clients had the choice between a club who would guarantee the compensation, and a club who heavily incentivised the compensation based on KPI's out of your client's sole control, which would you advise him to join? As for the "sugar daddy" model being unsustainable, tell that to Chelsea fans who have been benefiting from it for the last 13 years... I am not disputing your overall premise that unbalanced models are in theory unsustainable, because they rely on constant outside help. However, if a billionaire is crazy enough to be willing to "throw money at it" every year for prolonged periods of time (and the proof is in the pudding, several billionaires apparently are), there has to be a point when the model has survived for long enough to be called stable. If Roman keeps this up for another 20 years and becomes CFC's longest tenured owner, surely "unsustainable" is the wrong choice of word. Humans have been known to do stupid things for prolonged periods of time, becoming predictably/sustainably stupid. That possibility also exists - open your mind.

Posted By: BelgianSpur

Date/Time: 08/11/2017 10:02:00


Please add any additional comment you feel may be relevant