From t'Beeb

England's footballers gave their union almost unanimous support to call strike action in the dispute over television income. At a news conference today, Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor revealed the vote of players was 99 percent in favour of a strike.

Of 2,496 ballot papers sent out to members, 2,315 were returned, with 2,290 in favour.

According to Taylor, the Electoral Reform Services, who monitored the poll, said the vote in favor was: "unprecedented in any industrial action."

Taylor took great pains to put the PFA's case, and said: "Television money has never been so high in football and that's what this dispute is all about.

"A fair and equitable share for the players association."

Taylor took great pains to put the PFA's case, including the showing of a video.

The football players' union has held strike ballots twice before in the last 10 years, in 1992 and 1996, and on both occasions received more than 90% backing.

The Premier League will not take any immediate action after the ballot is announced, but if it fails to agree a deal next week and the PFA presses ahead with a strike, then it will take out an injunction to prevent the action.

The matter will then go to the High Court where a judge will decide whether such a strike is legitimate.

The PFA's last deal was for 5%, and they are seeking the same figure again - around £25m from the Premier League and £6m each from the Football Association and Football League.

The Premier League originally offered between £8m and £9m, but it is understood the latest offer on the table is for 2.5% of 'disposable TV income' which would work out at around £10m.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Answers

APpalling behaviour, chaps

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Might get us out of playing at Highbury...

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

22 voted against, which means there could be a game.

3 spoilt their papers, presumably couldn't spell X

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Or they wrote on the bottom "n/a I am a defender."

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

bastards! don't know what side their bread is buttered. How about a fan's strike to show them what the real balance is?

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

I'll never forgive them if they do strike.....you don't take the game away from the people who pay your salaries, us. Just like American sports hold their public to ransom so I fear will we.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Warren Barton says that they are striking on behalf of players in the lower divisions etc and that thankfully an "I'm all right, Jack" attitude doesn't prevail in football unlike in some industries. On this basis, can we assume that our lot will be giving their extra money to charity or to players in lower divisions? I actually do take their point about how they make the game and make money for the clubs so they deserve an equitable share. However, they need to think of how well-paid they are and how they will be perceived if they do strike. It'll be funny to hear, "Only 11 greedy bastards" ringing round the grounds.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Dougal, you are right in that the issue is not about money going to top players.. it is for their retirement fund/health schemes etc. and it is an hono(u)rable cause. However.... while I agree that they should get the percentage they are asking for I am a selfish bastard and will hate them if they take away my weekly diversion from real life!

The number of fans far outweighs the number of players and it is the fans who will suffer for this. I wish I could say "F**k the lot of you" and go and support a local amateur team but the bastards know that we are hooked for life :-((

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Having heard the PFA's case, and some v. unconvincing oppossing arguments from the Premier League's chiefs, I'm not at all suprised they've virtually unanimous support for industrial action (almost unprecedented). If I was in their position I'd do exactly the same. The money the PFA would miss out on would largely on into the pockets of the clubs instead of the excellent work the PFA does for younger players, and the vast majority who never earn remotely what the Beckhams etc get. The "one greedy bastard" chant couldn't be more inappropiate IMO.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

What would the response be if the players had to have a substantial pay decrease.......see how many would strike then. Not many. No one will win in this battle the biggest losers being the paying fan. If they do strike then the economic impact for everyone that does the smallest job for every football club will be without work. From the lads and lasses that sell us beer and hotdogs to the coach workers that take us to away games.........all out of work, for what? Because of over paid prima donnas that don't know how good they have it, divvent get uz started. Clubs will go under if the strike last for any length of time, the price of greed.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

What would be nice is to see the top players paying a percentage of their inflated salaries into a pot to support the lower league players. They all started down there but it's amazing how quickly they forget. Imagine how much 1% of all EPL players salary put into a fund would be... answers on a posting please

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Geeee, maybe if clubs didn't take their players on all expenses paid trips to spain for a punch/piss oh sorry no "club business" trip and put the money elsewhere we wouldn't be in this pickle would. But then again where would dyer get sent home from if he didn't go anywhere??

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

I uphold the right of the PFA to strike and their right to be in a union. However, I have to pay a PERCENTAGE of my salary to my union. This is fair, those who earn more than me pay more and those that earn less pay less. I understand ALL pro footballers play a flat rate irrespective of whether they play for Torquay or whatever or Man U. Ridiculous.

I wonder if the comrades of the PFA would be so unanimous in supporting paying out more of their salaries in union subs to support their brothers in the lower leagues. Would they be so high and mightly then? I very much doubt it.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

If they actually strike, the clubs will have breached the contracts with ITV / Sky and their income will reduce. This in turn would mean if the PFA got there in the end at their percentage they may well up with less money anyway. They are fighting a battle where everyone will lose - the clubs, the TV companies, the PFA and the fans.

The PL will probably offer a new deal before the proposed strike takes place. If it were to happen then there would be absolute mayhem. Players would be fined by their clubs left right and centre, some would be sacked and some fans would pack it in. Is it really for the good of the game?

They are getting more money at the lower percentage now than at the higher one in the past. As the number of players registered with them hasn't gone up, where would this extra money go? Into the pocket of Gordon Taylor?

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

PL players really want to be careful before striking. The cause of the lower league players may be just, but the publicity and public sentiment will focus on the overpaid primadonnas who can't be @rsed to give over a portion of their wages (Geordie's suggestion of 1% seems quite reasonable) to a fund for less privileged players. Might also swing general public opinion in their favor.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

I agree with ciara - they players are really playing with fire here.

With some serious vested interests involved I'd be surprised if we really saw a strike, but this is the beginning of the end of the golden era for the players and they had better start seeing the writing on the wall.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

A major point of the TV argument is that revenue is falling because of reduced advertising income. Tough tit.

Several players may be on the end of obscene amounts of cash, but at least they turn out and one or two of them occasionally entertain me.

Putting it mildly, I wouldn't miss a microsecond of TV advertising, and personally, I hope the TV companies are sh1tting bricks.

Shola's on and we've pulled one back just before half time. Now 2 - 1 to the Dutch. :-)

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

......reduced advertising revenue ultimately means less tv money coming into footy, and less money for the money-grabbing players.

Simple equation PB, and instead of just seeing fewer adverts with your footy you'll be watching more cr@p like Eastenders and Brookside on the Radio Times schedules.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Agreed, Clarky, but at least I can decide to give the whole programme a miss, rather than having to find other things to do during the poxy ad breaks.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

......yes, I know what you mean PB. I think that is actually what I find most irksome about the weekly ManU show in ITV.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

I thought I heard on the news that it was a "strike of televised matches" but all matches end up on tele.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Anyone see the main national BBC news this evening - those fans interviewed outside SJP agreed with the action (with one exception)!

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

I love the argument about how if the PFA don't get the extra money it will just end up in the pockets of the major shareholders. Not a chance in Hell that the major shareholders would then put up the price of season tickets to recoup that profit, is there?

It's going to be extremely interesting when the new TV deal is struck and all these greedy bastards have to take pay cuts: you can see Sunderland looking a bit clever if they still have monkey heed and his moth-infested wallet.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001