BoxRec

Leon won't have done too bad either. Premiership footballer...

There are 24 levels to the pyramid in English football, the Conference North is Level 6, I massively doubt there are any boxers earning less than those playing at Level 24.

There's only really eight levels of English football. Everything below step 8 is amateur football, not semi-pro, and the majority of players do it for fun.

Pro boxers are not in it for fun. Boxing is not a game. You don't play boxing.

You're problem is you're comparing a low level amateur GAME with the professional side of one of the toughest sports in the world.

There's no argument, a low level footballer (ie within steps four to six) is better paid than his equivalent in boxing.

Wake up call wrote:There's only really eight levels of English football. Everything below step 8 is amateur football, not semi-pro, and the majority of players do it for fun.

Pro boxers are not in it for fun. Boxing is not a game. You don't play boxing.

You're problem is you're comparing a low level amateur GAME with the professional side of one of the toughest sports in the world.

There's no argument, a low level footballer (ie within steps four to six) is better paid than his equivalent in boxing.

The amateur game is sunday league, in theory a journeyman could win a world title, just like a team at step 24 could win the first division.

You keep on going Expe - don't let facts or expert knowledge get in the way of your argument son... look forward to your thread on how, contrary to popular belief, the Earth is actually flat as well

expe wrote:

Wake up call wrote:There's only really eight levels of English football. Everything below step 8 is amateur football, not semi-pro, and the majority of players do it for fun.

Pro boxers are not in it for fun. Boxing is not a game. You don't play boxing.

You're problem is you're comparing a low level amateur GAME with the professional side of one of the toughest sports in the world.

There's no argument, a low level footballer (ie within steps four to six) is better paid than his equivalent in boxing.

The amateur game is sunday league, in theory a journeyman could win a world title, just like a team at step 24 could win the first division.

Err, no they couldn't. All teams below step 8 have to apply to go semi-professional with very stiff criteria. They can't climb into the FA system on results alone. You only came up the 24 steps thing because you looked it up on Wikipedia.

For the record, I know a number of lads that play at step 7 (that's level 11) and they do so for fun without pay. Nobody in that league is paid. In fact the league is called The West Riding County AMATEUR division.

Put the spade down Expe.
If you don't want to accept the word of people in the know that's your choice mate but there are a lot of flaws in your argument.
We could go on forever but there's nothing to be achieved.
By the way a football team at level 24 if they won consecutive titles, jumped through every hoop with the FA, upgraded their ground etc etc could not win the first division before 21 years had elapsed !
That's likely to happen isn't it ?

[quote="Parson Cross"]Put the spade down Expe.
If you don't want to accept the word of people in the know that's your choice mate but there are a lot of flaws in your argument.
We could go on forever but there's nothing to be achieved.
By the way a football team at level 24 if they won consecutive titles, jumped through every hoop with the FA, upgraded their ground etc etc could not win the first division before 21 years had elapsed !
That's likely to happen isn't it ?[/quote]
That's why I said in theory. As for the rest, I will take your's and everyone else's word for it, I will always class the bottom in football as sunday league or the bottom of the pyramid, that's why I said boxing is the most profitable sport in the world.

Wake up call - I fully understand the football pyramid, Wikipedia was only needed to remember the number of steps.

expe wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Put the spade down Expe.
If you don't want to accept the word of people in the know that's your choice mate but there are a lot of flaws in your argument.
We could go on forever but there's nothing to be achieved.
By the way a football team at level 24 if they won consecutive titles, jumped through every hoop with the FA, upgraded their ground etc etc could not win the first division before 21 years had elapsed !
That's likely to happen isn't it ?[/quote]
That's why I said in theory. As for the rest, I will take your's and everyone else's word for it, I will always class the bottom in football as sunday league or the bottom of the pyramid, that's why I said boxing is the most profitable sport in the world.

Wake up call - I fully understand the football pyramid, Wikipedia was only needed to remember the number of steps.

We have Amatuers in boxing, too you know.

mickey1975 wrote:

expe wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Put the spade down Expe.
If you don't want to accept the word of people in the know that's your choice mate but there are a lot of flaws in your argument.
We could go on forever but there's nothing to be achieved.
By the way a football team at level 24 if they won consecutive titles, jumped through every hoop with the FA, upgraded their ground etc etc could not win the first division before 21 years had elapsed !
That's likely to happen isn't it ?[/quote]
That's why I said in theory. As for the rest, I will take your's and everyone else's word for it, I will always class the bottom in football as sunday league or the bottom of the pyramid, that's why I said boxing is the most profitable sport in the world.

Wake up call - I fully understand the football pyramid, Wikipedia was only needed to remember the number of steps.

We have Amatuers in boxing, too you know.

Professional and amateur boxing are two codes of the same sport, like Rugby League and Rugby Union.

The top amateurs are better paid than the majority of winning pros.

Regardless of the number of levels in football, since when did the amounts earned by its participants provide a reliable indicator of the level of profitability of a sport? For example, how many Premier League clubs (indeed how many clubs across the 24 (????) levels run at a loss?

And what does this have to do the the OP comments on the positivity that should be coursing through British boxing?

Me personally thinks that British boxings doing very well just now,i cant remember there being as many world title fights involving Brits ever, especially as we,re only in July,plus we have a few more pending,Barker,Bellew,Groves,Quigg,Khan,then surely Burns and Cleverly are on the verge of unification bouts,all rosy for me but im sure some cynics will come on moaning about the Brits losing,although its not too bad,Afolabi lost to a fighter in Germany he,s Arguably beaten twice,Rees lost to a p4p top 10 fighter on away soil,Murray should have beat Martinez IMO, and thats not including knockdown he wasnt credited with,Purdy got thrown in the deep end away from home against Alexander,Macklin got felled by the most avoided boxer in the game today again away from home and not forgetting McDonnell beat a good unbeaten puncher to become a world champ,throw Haye/Fury and Froch/Groves in there to boot

Me,im well happy just now

earsjohn wrote:Regardless of the number of levels in football, since when did the amounts earned by its participants provide a reliable indicator of the level of profitability of a sport? For example, how many Premier League clubs (indeed how many clubs across the 24 (????) levels run at a loss?

And what does this have to do the the OP comments on the positivity that should be coursing through British boxing?

Depends what level the sport is. Top level football like the premiership, etc tends to have a fair number of clubs running at a loss because players are payed excessively. However saying that a lot of top level clubs in other countries are run on a sound financial footing hence why you hear chairmen of foreign clubs saying the premiership has an unfair advantage because they're being bankrolled by rich owners. Anyway a lot more of the lower level clubs are run on a relatively sound financial basis as they wouldnt be able to survive otherwise because they dont have rich owners bankrolling them. The ones that dont go into administration and finally liquidation.

columbo wrote:

earsjohn wrote:Regardless of the number of levels in football, since when did the amounts earned by its participants provide a reliable indicator of the level of profitability of a sport? For example, how many Premier League clubs (indeed how many clubs across the 24 (????) levels run at a loss?

And what does this have to do the the OP comments on the positivity that should be coursing through British boxing?

Depends what level the sport is. Top level football like the premiership, etc tends to have a fair number of clubs running at a loss because players are payed excessively. However saying that a lot of top level clubs in other countries are run on a sound financial footing hence why you hear chairmen of foreign clubs saying the premiership has an unfair advantage because they're being bankrolled by rich owners. Anyway a lot more of the lower level clubs are run on a relatively sound financial basis as they wouldnt be able to survive otherwise because they dont have rich owners bankrolling them. The ones that dont go into administration and finally liquidation.

They're run at a loss so they don't pay any tax, simple as.

earsjohn wrote:Regardless of the number of levels in football, since when did the amounts earned by its participants provide a reliable indicator of the level of profitability of a sport? For example, how many Premier League clubs (indeed how many clubs across the 24 (????) levels run at a loss?

And what does this have to do the the OP comments on the positivity that should be coursing through British boxing?

A large number of clubs run at a loss, especially in the lower leagues, it's hard to find a club that hasn't had some form of financial turmoil.

expe wrote:

earsjohn wrote:Regardless of the number of levels in football, since when did the amounts earned by its participants provide a reliable indicator of the level of profitability of a sport? For example, how many Premier League clubs (indeed how many clubs across the 24 (????) levels run at a loss?

And what does this have to do the the OP comments on the positivity that should be coursing through British boxing?

A large number of clubs run at a loss, especially in the lower leagues, it's hard to find a club that hasn't had some form of financial turmoil.

Because men with a lot of money buy the clubs as they have land holdings, they hold the club to ransom

palooka wrote:

expe wrote:

earsjohn wrote:Regardless of the number of levels in football, since when did the amounts earned by its participants provide a reliable indicator of the level of profitability of a sport? For example, how many Premier League clubs (indeed how many clubs across the 24 (????) levels run at a loss?

And what does this have to do the the OP comments on the positivity that should be coursing through British boxing?

A large number of clubs run at a loss, especially in the lower leagues, it's hard to find a club that hasn't had some form of financial turmoil.

Because men with a lot of money buy the clubs as they have land holdings, they hold the club to ransom

Most clubs financial difficulties can be attributed to sky and the premier league.

Maybe and there are quite a few very dodgy people involved with clubs; there were men with money that bought football clubs without the best of intentions before SKY and the Premier League. I live in Doncaster and before the current Chairman took over and made things right there were all kinds of things going on; including arson; (Ken Bates was in the news again today and he's been in football 50 years, the roots go deep). Wherever there is money and different streams going in and out there are shrewd men who see an advantage; if the Premier League made the streams wider it just brought the 'opportunities' of the football business to a wider (oligarch etc) audience.

Deserter wrote:You keep on going Expe - don't let facts or expert knowledge get in the way of your argument son... look forward to your thread on how, contrary to popular belief, the Earth is actually flat as well

brilliant thread and this post has sent me to bed grinning from ear to ear

so, are things really so bad or not?

MachoMan09 wrote:

palooka wrote:Maybe and there are quite a few very dodgy people involved with clubs; there were men with money that bought football clubs without the best of intentions before SKY and the Premier League. I live in Doncaster and before the current Chairman took over and made things right there were all kinds of things going on; including arson; (Ken Bates was in the news again today and he's been in football 50 years, the roots go deep). Wherever there is money and different streams going in and out there are shrewd men who see an advantage; if the Premier League made the streams wider it just brought the 'opportunities' of the football business to a wider (oligarch etc) audience.

You need to look no further than one of the clubs mentioned in this topic to see that lower league football is not exempt from having dodgy chairmen.

The best example is found by the sea, at one end of the M55, where the rapist is draining them of every penny