Luke Young and the loyalty question
When the Currant Bun ran a story about Luke Young heading off to a bigger club in the summer, I dismissed as a piece of speculative journalism, perhaps based on the fact that Joanna Taylor claims to be friendly with Luke's partner, Jessica. Or perhaps an agent was trying to boost Luke's salary. (I'm not sure when his contract ends).
However, now I have been contacted by someone who has what, on the face of it, looks like quite convincing corroborative evidence that the Charlton captain will indeed be going to Spudz in the summer. He was even able to provide the salary that Luke earns now and claimed that it would be doubled when he returned to White Hart Lane (where, of course, he was a bench based utility player).
That intelligent footballer Andy Hunt once reminded us that footballers generally play for at least three or four clubs in the course of their career whereas the fans have one club all their life. (There is actually more churn in loyalties than generally admitted, but that is another story). Footballers have a (relatively short) career and need to make the most of it. Last week Richard Adams left Leamington to go to Redditch United. His salary went from £30 a week at the Brakes to probably over £100 a week at Redditch. Would any of us refuse a chance to double or triple our salaries?
Of course the usual suspects have used the Young story to claim that it shows a lack of 'ambition' at Charlton. I'm never quite sure what this means. Should we just go around largeing it or should we spend money we don't have? Comparisons have been made with Wigan and West Ham. But Wigan are a benefactor club and I would have more doubts about their long-term Premiership survival than the Addicks. West Ham are a bigger club than us. They have a bigger supporter base and a much larger income from boxes. We have the smallest ground or any Premiership club (and the lowest ticket prices).
Must be careful about this, though, as a friend who thinks that Charlton are a naff, down market club (and in a way I can see what she means) has sent me an E mail setting out a formidable critique of the 'economism' of my approach to football. Of course, one can't read off performances from resources but my view is that Charlton are above the regression line in terms of achievement rather than below it.
I was reminded of our relative size when I had a long medical check up yesterday and the doctor was a Manchester City season ticket (or rather, season card) holder. He was, of course, able to mention their double over us. A Massive supporter from the age of six, he had lived in South Africa for fifteen years before the age of the Internet and described how difficult it was to keep in touch with his team.
Good job blogs don't have a sub or the last two paragraphs would be cut out!
However, now I have been contacted by someone who has what, on the face of it, looks like quite convincing corroborative evidence that the Charlton captain will indeed be going to Spudz in the summer. He was even able to provide the salary that Luke earns now and claimed that it would be doubled when he returned to White Hart Lane (where, of course, he was a bench based utility player).
That intelligent footballer Andy Hunt once reminded us that footballers generally play for at least three or four clubs in the course of their career whereas the fans have one club all their life. (There is actually more churn in loyalties than generally admitted, but that is another story). Footballers have a (relatively short) career and need to make the most of it. Last week Richard Adams left Leamington to go to Redditch United. His salary went from £30 a week at the Brakes to probably over £100 a week at Redditch. Would any of us refuse a chance to double or triple our salaries?
Of course the usual suspects have used the Young story to claim that it shows a lack of 'ambition' at Charlton. I'm never quite sure what this means. Should we just go around largeing it or should we spend money we don't have? Comparisons have been made with Wigan and West Ham. But Wigan are a benefactor club and I would have more doubts about their long-term Premiership survival than the Addicks. West Ham are a bigger club than us. They have a bigger supporter base and a much larger income from boxes. We have the smallest ground or any Premiership club (and the lowest ticket prices).
Must be careful about this, though, as a friend who thinks that Charlton are a naff, down market club (and in a way I can see what she means) has sent me an E mail setting out a formidable critique of the 'economism' of my approach to football. Of course, one can't read off performances from resources but my view is that Charlton are above the regression line in terms of achievement rather than below it.
I was reminded of our relative size when I had a long medical check up yesterday and the doctor was a Manchester City season ticket (or rather, season card) holder. He was, of course, able to mention their double over us. A Massive supporter from the age of six, he had lived in South Africa for fifteen years before the age of the Internet and described how difficult it was to keep in touch with his team.
Good job blogs don't have a sub or the last two paragraphs would be cut out!
posted by Wyn Grant at 8:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home