Probably a load of old tabloid bullshit but funny if it is true, go on Dave tell 'em you're worth it!

David Beckham has reportedly asked Manchester United for wages of £160,000 a week to keep him at Old Trafford for the rest of his career.

A nice time to be negotiating contracts, me thinks!

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Answers

Apparently, his "needs" are £100k net - ie. net of tax all deductions - this is the way the top stars negotiate!.

For the long-term good of football, manure should just tell this toss-pot to get lost - he simply isn't worth it.

I've now seen this guy live about 5 or six times, and he's yet to do a single thing that really impressed me. He is a good player fortunate enough to be playing in an outstanding team, but he's simply not the world class super-star he's made out to be in the media. I would put him about on a par with Ryan Giggs, but he's not in the same league as George Best who could do everything, and nowhere near as good as our own Gazza, albeit a different kind of player.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

My first thoughts were along the same lines as most people I would imagine. But, having thought for a while (now that hurt...), I figure - good luck to him. I bet he's worth that to Manure, and if you compare him with the top golfers / tennis players / racing drivers, then £8.3m is on a par with the best of them.

If someone else comes in offering that to him to get him from MUTD, then it just proves he was correct. He IS worth that much on the open market, and should be paid as such.

Most of us would move for more money, or have done in the past, and most of us have been in salary negotiations too, so we know what we are worth on the open market and demand that from our current employers. And if they don't pay, then we have the right to look elsewhere to those who will. Of course, this is all without discussing that word 'loyalty', but that works both ways.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

When Becks sets a new precedent that countless others will follow Nick, just remember who will pay the extra cost at the end of the day - the punters, you and I, that's who.

If you think he's worth it then that's your judgement - I for one don't.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

If he was on a Bosman, which he isn't, I would reckon that's a fair amount for someone with his reputation in the game. How much would it cost Manure to replace him?

Well you'd have to ask messrs Robson and Shepherd how much they want for Nobby!

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Michael Schumacher wouldn't put his earplugs in for that amount.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

I don't think he'd put his racing socks on for a paultry £8.4 m a year!!

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

NOBODY is worth that sort of money.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

160K a week for an illiterate, spoilt kid. What sort of message does that send out to our young'uns? Virtue, courage and temperance are not important? Education is not important?

Just because this lad can put a ball on someones head 8 times out of ten does that mean that all these issues become secondary. If Beckham gets this silly money, football will catapult itself toward bankrupcy with only a handfull of clubs being able to compete.

He already has more money than he knows what to do with, so why these outrageous demands? Is he going to buy a small country somewhere? The man is not even a good ambassador for the game, he may do the odd charity gig but that is more forced volunteerism than any moral standing.

if he was to give 20% of it to charity then pay him it. Otherwise he should be gratefull enough just to be so gifted that he can grace a football field.

What are we coming to when the most important things in life are dictated by money.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

for a moment i thought i'd been transported back to the early 70's watching top of the pops with me grandad.

why do we care how much beckham gets paid? is he greedy? - maybe - but if somebody is willing to pay him 8 mil a year then so be it. manu will live or die by the decision not us.

i'm also tired of this "semi literate" nonsense. the blokes been playing full time footie since he was 10 years old, what do expect, oscar wilde?

its hard to imagine how much hard work goes in to making it as a pro athlete. remember all those kids who were brilliant players at school, had trials with leeds but wasted it by getting bladdered every other night.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

GB I understand your point but why do we still continue to reward illiterate people who essentially offer nothing of substance to our already weak society? He is an excellent player, I agree however at what price has he had to sacrifice himself as a respected person? Give me a nobel prize or a pullitzer prize winner any day.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Sorry to have to disagree with you syme, well thats not really true, however I digress.

He has the ability to cross, not put it on someones head.

The last bit depends on the other players reading what he is going to do and getting on the end of it.

He would be worth 16p if he put the crosses in and the rest of the team were in their own half wouldn't he?

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

>>why do we still continue to reward illiterate people who essentially offer nothing of substance to our already weak society?

syme, why do we care about football? as long as we do and we're willing to part with our cash for its sake then players will be paid above and beyond their "worth" in your esoteric value system.

the long term impact on the game - a few elite clubs domonating the scene- is already in process, nothing we can do about it although the EU seem intent on accelerating it.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Footballers aren't paid for their everyday brains. Sportsmen around the world earn vaster sums of money for their ability to hit a ball in a certain place!

why do we still continue to reward illiterate people who essentially offer nothing of substance to our already weak society?

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

So globally we have a problem don't we? I don't mean to come off as someone that want's everyone to adhere to some unattainable value system, I've been reading some of Aristotles work and I guess it has me looking at things differently. I am just horrified that people are able to hold whole clubs ransom. True other sportsmen earn more, but more often than not it is down to individual effort, not one person in a team of collaborators. Tiger woods earns zillions by himself, nobody comes on and puts for him.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

The Schumacher - Beckham thing is a dodgy argument, don't see Beckham actually dying if one of the opposition bumps into him at top speed.

I read Henry Cooper's biography once and he was on about pressure in sport. He was into playing golf and mentioned the pressure of sinking a winning putt and said it was nothing in comparison to the pressure of getting your head knocked off.

.....

If Beckham gets his money then so will Keane, then Cole will want it, then Owen will say he's worth more than Cole and he'll get more, then Heskey will get it too, then Barmby, then Henry will go beserk cos he's better than them all, then Parlour will say he always used to get 80% of what Henry gets, then Steve Stone will say he always go twhat Parlour got, then Alex Rae will say he scores more goals than Stone so he should get the same, and then Dichio will say he's as valuable as Alex Rae and then we all laugh our socks off, except that Gary Speed will suddenly be on £200k a week.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

My point precisely Macbeth - and the reality is that football cannot afford these ludicrous salaries that are being demanded by thickos who can't, or won't, comprehend the potential damage they are doing to the game - undoubtedly they are actively killing the golden goose.

I watched US baseball and football pros bring their respective games to its knees financially through excessive wage demands - resulting in salary caps that would be so incredibly difficult to adopt in Europe.

If these damands by Beckham have been accurately reported, this is the time for the Clubs to make their stand - before it is too late. They won't, of course, and Becks will ultimately settle for a lesser, but still obscene amount of lucca.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

>>>>>this is the time for the Clubs to make their stand - before it is too late.

The clubs won't make a stand - they are in competition with each other to secure the best players - that's why the wages are bid upwards. At some point (possibly past already) the income stream will be insufficient to support these spiralling costs and then the game could implode financially as clubs will be contractually locked into paying huge deals while revenue from gates/tv levels off or declines.

If such a circumstance does arise, then a club with huge borrowings on it's stadium would be in real trouble. :-)

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

You paint a very depressing picture Jonno - my point was simply suggesting that the Clubs wake up and realise the inevitable outcome of the present fiscal impropriety and do something positive about it - before it really is too late.

This is not exactly brain surgery, surely?

-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001

The others may have missed it syme, but I didn't.

It's good to see someone else reading the classics. Particularly Aristotle.

Have you got to the chapter where he is on the boat with Maria Callas?

-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001

I was painting a worst-case-scenario Clarky, not a prediction. In some ways I'm quite happy to see our club being a lot more prudent than in recent seasons, although it's a shame that probably the best manager of the bunch is bearing the brunt of that. Thge financial press backs up your point that the clubs must take a stand on wages or they cannot be considered as investments just now.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001

Article from the Mirror On-Line:

FOOTBALL: BECKHAM'S SECRET TAX LOOPHOLE

MANCHESTER UNITED have dramatically increased their chances of keeping David Beckham after discovering a way of paying him £100,000 (after tax) per week WITHOUT breaking their rigid pay structure.

A test case with the Inland Revenue has cleared the way for Beckham to be given two new contracts - £75,000-a-week for playing, and a second tax-free deal allowing the club to cash-in on his enormous image rights.

For an extra £50,000-a-week payment to the England star, the club will be free to keep the profits from the mass of merchandise sold in their megastores labelled with Beckham's name. It means United can increase his salary from the current £26,000-a-week to £100,000 after tax, matching offers Barcelona or any of the other European giants are preparing in a attempt to lure him abroad.

The new deal has been made possible by the test case, won by Arsenal on behalf of Dennis Bergkamp and former player David Platt. The Dutch striker and former England captain arrived at Highbury with their image rights deals already in place from playing in Italy. The Inland Revenue argued they were merely a smokescreen to pay players more money but the landmark case was thrown out on appeal.

Beckham and his team-mates will now be able to set up their own offshore companies to receive the image rights money, making huge tax savings possible.

Along with a new Adidas deal on offer, Beckham could be on around £10 million a year.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

one goal for england...

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001