What are the feelings on this ?

If the reasons for claiming a bigger share of the Sky money are as altruistic as the union are making out, why not, I reckon.

I'm a bit surprised Bobby's gone into print on the matter though.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2001

Answers

Almost Postponed.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2001

I'm not sure I would be very impressed with any player in the PL going on strike about this. Lower divisions is a different matter. If the PFA say the extra money will go towards all pro footballers (from 3rd Div up) then I have some sympathy.

The only recourse of the workforce is to withdraw their labour. The right to do so in reasonable dispute is something I strongly believe in...brothers and sisters.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2001

It'll just take more money away from the clubs....meaning we can't pay our players ;)

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2001

Bobby,

unfortunately the players are in dispute with the premier league and not their clubs, yet the clubs are the ones with which they hold a contract. Therfore if they go on strike, because as yet they have no grounds for dispute against their respective clubs, they will be in breach of contract and are subject to any laws pertaining to said breach of contract. Like Peter Ridsdale said ' we won't pay em '

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2001

Not quite sure I understand all this.

The best way for the PFA to get more, would be to charge players a 0.5% of their wages to be members. This would easily pull in megabucks. If Beckham say gets £4m a year (I dunno I'm guessing) then he'd be paying in £20k a year to the PFA. Joe Bloggs down at Darlingotn getting £40k a year would be putting in £200 for his sins. The players who are concerned about the welfare of their brethren would be easily able to cope on those sums.

In tha April 2001 Deloitees report the Premiership wage bill is noted as £471m (not counting Bradford who weren't available, but probably irrelevant anyway). 0.5% of that would give the PFA £2.3m every year to play with. That is an awful lot of money.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2001

nobody is forced to be a pro footballer. for players who make it, its the realisation of a dream.

once in they they have no qualms about selling their services at the absolute maximum that a club will pay (whether the club can afford it or not). for some this is a packet for others its not, but nobody is forcing them to be pro footballers, go work in a warehouse if you don't like it.

i'm not complaining about this hyper capitalistic labour system, but don't come crying about the down side. seems that players want to have their cake and eat it.

if the PFA needs more cash for the poor underprivledged 3rd div player and the prem players agree then why not impose a union levy base on a percentage of players salaries. the proposed solution is screwing the clubs & ultimately the supporters

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2001

I would feel a little more sympathetic towards the PFA if Gordon Taylor himself was not earning a reported £450,000 per year. This apparently makes him the highest paid union boss in Britain by some considerable distance and makes his pleas of the union's poverty a little hard to take!

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2001