jt's ?150k per week....obscene or what?!

[Flat_Eric]

warren zevon rip wrote:

>>

Refreshing.


>>>


All fine and dandy, wazza.

But I still feel that you're missing the point of the original question somewhat.

Which (as far as I understand it) wasn't

"how obscene are teachers' salaries in the UK when there are millions starving in Africa?"

but

"how obscene is it that a bunch of blokes with trendy haircuts should get paid telephone numbers every week for what amonuts to kicking a bag of wind around a park as a leisure activity for maybe 20 hours a week" (while people doing REAL work like nurses, firefighters, squaddies in Afghanistan etc. etc. are struggling by on a relative pittance and often can't even afford to get on the property ladder, and the PM of the UK only gets in a year what Terry gets in a week ***FOR RUNNING THE FUCKING COUNTRY***).

And if (as you seem intent on doing) you bring the starving millions into the equation as well (so okay, okay - I'll play along), all that does is highlight even more how obscene and absurd the situation is.

Perhaps the answer (in an ideal world) would be for the John Terrys and David Beckhams of this world to donate 10% of their salary each week in order to solve the problem.

After all, the "give generously" charity ads are constantly telling us that all it takes is a couple of quid to save a life in Africa.

If that's really the case, then if Terry, Beckham, Ronaldinho, Shevchenko, & Co. and all those other obsecenely rich "sports personalities" were to do that - problem sorted in no time.

But of course it'll never happen.

- Eric

[Flat_Eric]

WAZZA WROTE: >>>


ERIC REPLIES: Now now, wazza. Calm down.

Don't be like that.

Despite the above, it IS at times possible to have a decent debate with you - when you're not calling people "thick" and talking down to them in that annoying schoolmasterly fashion that you adopt when you think that one or more of us needs "teaching a lesson" or "putting straight".

I mean, have I not conceded that you're an intelligent bloke (once again, despite the above)?

And was my last post not dealing strictly with the subject at hand rather than taking issue with your failings? Was I not being more conciliatory?



WAZZA WROTE:>>>

ERIC REPLIES: Well indeed. Why not?


WAZZA WROTE: >>>

ERIC REPLIES: Oh wazza. Please accept from me a "virtual" box of Kleenex and a (similarly "virtual") comforting stroke on the head.

I never realised that you were such a sensitive sole at heart.

I have no quarrel with your arithmetic, But once again - separate issue.

The number of people on that sort of crazy money isn't really important. Whether it's half a dozen or 100 or 1000 (pick a number - it doesn't matter).

It's about whether anyone **morally** deserves that sort of money for playing football - or is it an obscene situation (either it is, or it isn't).

What does amaze me is that someone like you - who openly espouses the virtues of communism (with a small "c") and laments the plight of the poor - can simply shrug their shoulders at this and basically say "well, that's the way the market works - c'est la vie, I'll go along with it."

I mean: all that money in the hands of an 'elite' few: doesn't exactly gel with those communist ideals does it? I would have thought you'd be up in arms about it.

I rest my case.

- Eric

[Flat_Eric]

>>>


So basically - after all that - we actually DO agree that it's obscene. We just disagree on the degree of obscenity involved.

But that's okay wazza - I can live with that.


>>

Oh yes I will (limbering up for panto season).

- Eric

[Deuce Bigolo]

150k a week is a small obscenity when compared to what that hasbeen David Beckham got for signing on at La Galaxy?

Still if the banks are prepared to lend such ridiculous sums of money to big business who really are the obscene ones?