egafd.com

David Johnson wrote:

> It's not as if it comes with a cheque or anything so I don't
> see the problem.

I didn't say that there was a problem. Accept it, don't accept it but if it upsets or bothers you that much, then don't accept it.

Actually, David, it does come with a cheque insofar as I would bet that those athletes (or indeed any other person) with a knighthood will see a bigger bump in their bank balance than those without one.

"I didn't say that there was a problem."

I didn't say you did.

"if it upsets or bothers you that much"

Wiggins has never stated as far as I know that it "upsets or bothers him that much". He used the word "uncomfortable" about the name being used in a formal way in the interview I saw . Like I said he regarded the knighthood as recognition not just for him but also the team around him. Just as the vast majority of athletes recognised that without the team around them, they would not have won a gold.

As for the monetary side of things, given he is a 4 times Olympic gold medal winner, the first Brit ever to win the Tour de France, the 2012 Sports Person of the Year award winner, has an ongoing very lucrative contract with Team Sky and a large number of advertising deals, I would be surprised if the "sir" makes any difference at all, financially. The guy is regarded as a god in cycling so being "sir god" is unlikely to make a difference.

David Johnson wrote:


> "if it upsets or bothers you that much"
>
> Wiggins has never stated as far as I know that it "upsets or
> bothers him that much".

I didn't say that it did. I never mentioned Wiggins in that context - it was a general observation.


He used the word "uncomfortable" about
> the name being used in a formal way in the interview I saw .
> Like I said he regarded the knighthood as recognition not just
> for him but also the team around him. Just as the vast
> majority of athletes recognised that without the team around
> them, they would not have won a gold.

Of course, but it is the athlete who gets the recognition not the back room boys...

>
> As for the monetary side of things, given he is a 4 times
> Olympic gold medal winner, the first Brit ever to win the Tour
> de France, the 2012 Sports Person of the Year award winner, has
> an ongoing very lucrative contract with Team Sky and a large
> number of advertising deals, I would be surprised if the "sir"
> makes any difference at all, financially. The guy is regarded
> as a god in cycling so being "sir god" is unlikely to make a
> difference.

Perhaps for him no, but I would wager that Sir Bobby Charlton earns more money than Mr Jackie Charlton...

""if it upsets or bothers you that much"
> Wiggins has never stated as far as I know that it "upsets or
> bothers him that much".
I didn't say that it did. I never mentioned Wiggins in that context - it was a general observation. "

Clearly you did, Essex Lad, in your initial response to Argie from which this part of the thread flows

"Arginald Valleywater wrote:

> Exactly! Wiggins seems uncomfortable with the knighthood and I
> can't see him using it much.

Not uncomfortable enough for him to turn it down, though..."


"Of course, but it is the athlete who gets the recognition not the back room boys..."

Clearly, but the publicity all adds to the increased buzz about cycling which impacts the back room boys.

"Perhaps for him no, but I would wager that Sir Bobby Charlton earns more money than Mr Jackie Charlton..."

I was only commenting on Wiggins, obviously. I cannot comment on the many others who have been made Sir. WIth regard to the Charltons you may be correct, but Bobby was a world famous centre forward for Manchester, is now on the board and still in the public eye so it would be nigh impossible for you to separate the value out of being a "sir".

David Johnson wrote:

> ""if it upsets or bothers you that much"
> > Wiggins has never stated as far as I know that it "upsets or
> > bothers him that much".
> I didn't say that it did. I never mentioned Wiggins in that
> context - it was a general observation. "
>
> Clearly you did, Essex Lad, in your initial response to Argie
> from which this part of the thread flows

No i didn't. I was referring to gongs in general.

I wrote: "I didn't say that there was a problem. Accept it, don't accept it but if it upsets or bothers you that much, then don't accept it."

Show me in the above sentence where I mentioned the words "Bradley" or "Wiggins".


>
> "Arginald Valleywater wrote:
>
> > Exactly! Wiggins seems uncomfortable with the knighthood and
> I
> > can't see him using it much.
>
> Not uncomfortable enough for him to turn it down, though..."
>
>
> "Of course, but it is the athlete who gets the recognition not
> the back room boys..."
>
> Clearly, but the publicity all adds to the increased buzz about
> cycling which impacts the back room boys.
>
> "Perhaps for him no, but I would wager that Sir Bobby Charlton
> earns more money than Mr Jackie Charlton..."
>
> I was only commenting on Wiggins, obviously. I cannot comment
> on the many others who have been made Sir. WIth regard to the
> Charltons you may be correct, but Bobby was a world famous
> centre forward for Manchester, is now on the board and still in
> the public eye so it would be nigh impossible for you to
> separate the value out of being a "sir".

No, it wouldn't. Jackie was a world famous centre half and a much better manager than his brother. If he had been knighted, he may well have been as rich as Bobby. Surely one begets the other.

This subject is really not that important is it?

But I must profess that I am not a mind reader as far as you or anyone is concerned.

Your first post in reply to Argie is specific to Wiggins

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=264096&t=264083

I respond specifically about Wiggins in reply to you here

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=264103&t=264083

YOu then reply here without mentioning Wiggins as you say and which I have never argued you did and end with a general comment about finance.

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=264116&t=264083

So what am I supposed to think at this point:

You are talking about other prospective sirs who have turned this down but I haven't a clue which ones you are on about?

Or

You are talking about Wiggins which is what you were referring to in reply to Argie?

In tjhe absence of any indicator whatsoever I assume the second.

Then you say "I would wager that Sir Bobby Charlton earns more money than Mr Jackie Charlton..."

Now given that you have two different human beings with completely different careers in which Bobby Charlton was one of the most famous footballers in the world at one time, survived the Munich air crash, won the Balon D'or Footballer of the Year and has been a member of the Board of one of the most successful clubs in world football for nigh on 30 years, I would be interested in your methodology which separated out Bobby Charlton's career from his knighthood to the extent that you could say his knighthood helped him to earn blah which meant he earned more than Jackie.

Meanwhile in the immortal words of the Dragons Den, "I'm out!"