Is This Wrong Too?

[youngmafbog]

Whenever a Banker is sacked and receives a pay off there is uproar on this site.

Why nothing posted on this then?

The 50-year-old signed a six-year contract but is now in line for a pay-off of around £4m - a year's salary - after less than a year in charge.

Or is it different for anyone in the footballing world when someone massively fails?

http://news.sky.com/story/1246894/david-moyes-sacked-as-manchester-united-boss

[jim360]

It is pretty gross. I think the biggest difference, surely, is that the Banks fouled up our economy. Moyes only fouled up a football team. Well, that and taxpayers own or owned a large share in Banks and had to bail them out. It's a different situation, although the amounts of money involved are fairly obscene.

[hc4361]

Yes, it's very different.

[Old_Geezer]

It's never right and the contract drawn up should not allow it in any job. That pay out is funded from the rest of us one way or another.

[jno]

I don't suppose the government will decide that Man U are too big to fail, and take them over at public expense when things go wrong, unlike a bank. I think all footballers should play for tuppence a week and for the love of the game, but it's not going to happen.

[emmie]

i get more incensed when a government worker get a golden handshake of lots of moolah, then promptly walks into another government job, or "Retires" and does the bloody same, so gets pension pot, plus new salary, that is criminal - NHS is good at this. My o/h could have done same, retired, taken his pension, then gone back in as a consultant, it wasn't government, but a public body, he didn't get pension or consultancy, as he didn't live long enough to do either.

[scooping]

If it's a banker it affects us because, firstly, the taxpayers own a large percentage of the banks and, secondly, because the performance of the banks generally affect people in their day to day existence. If it's the under-boss of a private company then it's up to them. A civil contract is just that. A matter between the club, the man and nothing else.

[emmie]

a small percentage of those in banking are these over paid bonus laden bods, the majority are not - i am sure their salaries aren't anywhere near the figures we see banded about

[scooping]

Think of all the tax these clubs and individuals pay. Even with loopholes it's an awful lot for our hospitals and schools...More rich people paying tax - great.

[royfromaus]

What a strange comparison.

[Gromit]

Did the Government spend £billions saving Manchester United?

They did spend £billions saving the banking system, so we get cross that people who fouled up are given large sums to go away. I feels like our money they are getting.

Moyes was useless so a commercial company has taken a decision to pay him off with their own money.

[Bazile]

I feel sorry for the poor fans ( actually i dont - they have a choice ) who buy for example a football shirt for £ 60 quid - which costs a few quid to make .

Someone is making a lot of dosh - no wonder they can pay these inflated salaries to managers and players alike

[emmie]

football in Britain is a rich man's game, players, managers, shareholders,
they shuffle people around like cards, top players get millions, for kicking a ball around, its a game for the most part that has lost any credibility or soul
how many non British players in the Premier League, should it matter, perhaps not, but you can't call it English football any more, they may play in England when not playing overseas, but that is about it.
why is a strange comparison, people get paid for what they are worth,
not so.

[emmie]

if they did, many footballers would go back to earning a few quid a week, and good doctors, those who save lives, would get oodles.

[youngmafbog]

//firstly, the taxpayers own a large percentage of the banks //

Err, well only one really and its not so large as it is being sold back off.

[royfromaus]

Only one?