[bishbash72]

I think it's ironic that the people who join these groups are invariably hardcore football fans, who contribute towards the high salaries of their favourite players.

[YorkieLad101]

damn right!

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by JOR2010)
It's a bit disgusting when players start complaining they haven't got enough money, or moving clubs because they'll earn more money. I understand that 61% of what footballers earn is tax, so there's that argument, but they're still left with extraordinary amounts to live on.

Not really aware of them saying they haven't got enough, but if they do, of course thats bad. But there is nothing wrong with them moving clubs for more money. Would you change jobs for more money if the job was basically the same it was just a different company and you didn't mind the move? Of course you would.

[MarioBrother's]

(Original post by CinderellaDontGo)
Yeah let's pay soldiers mental wages, let's pay the hired killers! Because that won't stop young boys joining the army and killing themselves will it? Let's encourage more kids to drop out of school.

Peoples stupidity never ceases to amaze me, and that whole ''well you couldn't do it'' argument is such a crap point; yes I couldn't go to Iraq but I don't need to as I listened In school. So what if it's dangerous, they know the risks.

The army will not accept anyone with below a C/B grade at GCSE. Therefore they do not encourage kids to drop out of school, they tell them to stay in school. They also encourage kids to stay in school and pursuit a higher level of education, so the when they no longer are military personnel and get out of the army, they have the grades to carry on in a different line of work.

You may have listened in school but in fact that means you have a higher chance of joining the army. Yes its dangerous, that's why they don't allow anyone who they do not think is ready for the predicament through.

[Scumbaggio]

(Original post by MarioBrother's)
The army will not accept anyone with below a C/B grade at GCSE. Therefore they do not encourage kids to drop out of school, they tell them to stay in school. They also encourage kids to stay in school and pursuit a higher level of education, so the when they no longer are military personnel and get out of the army, they have the grades to carry on in a different line of work.

You may have listened in school but in fact that means you have a higher chance of joining the army. Yes its dangerous, that's why they don't allow anyone who they do not think is ready for the predicament through.

This bit cannot possibly be true.

[MarioBrother's]

(Original post by Scumbaggio)
This bit cannot possibly be true.

Trust me it is.. My dads in the army and he had to get a C/B grade before he could join.

[MopHead]

(Original post by Scumbaggio)
This bit cannot possibly be true.

Believe it or not, it is true. The army will not take anyone who does not have Grades C or higher. If you do not have the grades then they will not take you, they will most likely tell you to go back to school if you want to join, but not only that, they like you to have a bit of work experience.

My dad has just finished his 23 years of the army and we have moved out of Germany (Was a part of the British Forces in Germany, was Fuseliers but then became 3 Mercian), and back when he joined the army, you did not need a thing. However the law has changed and the army will not accept anyone with a low set of grades.

In the army you can do courses and they will get your grades up.

But here's what they look at:

* Science + Physical Education would do good in becoming a Engineer/Vehicle Mechanic/Bomb Squad/Medic

You need the Chemistry levels to know what goes on in a Bomb.
You need the Physics levels to be a good Gun/Vehicle Mechanic
You need Biology to be a good Medic/Doctor to perform Levels 1,2,3 treatments to soldiers in battle

Or you could do whatever you wanted but you need the grades to do it!
Only thing that don't really require much is Forces Dog Handling.

Therefore MarioBrother's is correct.

[ed-]

(Original post by shrep)
It's supply and demand. There are very few highly skilled footballers, and there is a massive demand for them, on the other hand, there are many more potential soldiers than there is a demand for. If we paid people based on emotions we would pay nurses more than doctors. Of course the doctors would then become nurses and you would be left without any doctors.

This.

And I neg'd you by accident OP. My bad.

[lucaf]

footballers are paid that much because we have made the industry worth that much. the millions will keep flooding in, and they need to go somewhere. soldiers may do a more valuable job than footballers but it is a job that far more people are able to do, so of course they will be paid less. binmen have more use to society than footballers do, that doesn't mean they should be paid more.

[caravaggio2]

Talking of soldiers pay, I heard somebody the other day saying (in relation to the recent" should women be allowed to go into combat" debate) that women in the Army, posted to Afghanistan, get paid the same rate as the men even though they are not required to go on the much more dangerous duties such as foot patrols etc, where they come into contact with IED's and the like.
This cant be right surely. Was he talking ****?
Anybody in the forces on here?

[moonkatt]

(Original post by MopHead)
Believe it or not, it is true. The army will not take anyone who does not have Grades C or higher. If you do not have the grades then they will not take you, they will most likely tell you to go back to school if you want to join, but not only that, they like you to have a bit of work experience.

You do not need any formal qualifications to join the infantry.

http://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder/ro...antry-soldier/

I spent six years in the infantry and a lot of the lads I worked with left school with very little in the way of academic qualifications, however the army has helped them and support their soldiers encouraging them to gain academic qualifications whilst serving.

[moonkatt]

(Original post by caravaggio2)
Talking of soldiers pay, I heard somebody the other day saying (in relation to the recent" should women be allowed to go into combat" debate) that women in the Army, posted to Afghanistan, get paid the same rate as the men even though they are not required to go on the much more dangerous duties such as foot patrols etc, where they come into contact with IED's and the like.
This cant be right surely. Was he talking ****?
Anybody in the forces on here?

Female soldiers do go out on patrol and face as much risk as male soldiers due to the nature of combat in Afghanistan.

[Three Mile Sprint]

Im bored..ill bite and for the record im just really making comments on most of these points for others to read, not so much arguing with you are anything OP.

(Original post by TheRealDarthVader)

A few things to consider:

Every person who joins the forces has a choice to do so. Would you work at Tesco under the same conditions?

Generally you don't join the Army for the amazing financial benefits, it's usually for the lifestyle, or a semi-stable job.

Saying that...I joined due to family tradition..and my trade was well paid.

I read that 99.98% of kids who play football aren't even looked at by an academy scout (and therefore have no chance of going professional). This means that those who make it are highly skilled individuals.

Indeed they are

Being pretty average in all respects, would it be wrong of me to assume I couldn't easily get into the army? My friend recently joined the navy, and said that the army exam were questions such as which of these shapes is a triangle.

Pretty much anyone can join the forces, it's not hard, the majority of people who make it in are ****ing mongs through and through.
No more intelligent, courageous or fantastic than any other person.

Is it just footballers? Actors are paid huge amounts too. Footballers' careers last at the most twenty years, and many are too thick to get a job afterwards in the media or as a manager or coach. So in that respect, should they be paid more for the time while they are working, or is it their own fault for not paying attention in school?

This is the crutch of it, Footballers and actors are in huge public demand, we LOVE to see them, watch them, have them in our lives and living rooms when we can.

The sheer insane demand we place on them, justifys there huge earnings.
They are a commodity, Pro Athletes, and talented actors cannot just be magicked into existence, it takes latent talent and immense effort and commitment.

While on the otherhand, pretty much anyone can be wipped into a passible solider, given a few months and the normal training methods.

Top level footballers become celebrities and national heroes, is this right or wrong? David Beckham has won nothing with England, but he is more well known than the current defence secretary.

Nothing wrong with it at all, he has become a national treasure, an intelligent, friendly, funny ideal model of a man who we can all like and look up to.

Is it a noble thing to die for your country? The people on the other side are dying for their country. Both sides can justify their cause for war, so who is in the right?

You can try and justify that it is, and certainly I would say it all depends on circumstance and context.

But in the long run, everyone who dies in war or conflict is a hero for there cause.

Is it really a noble thing to take up a profession knowing that you may have to kill people? Is it really in defence of this nation when fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan? No one has found any nukes, so does that mean they aren't a threat? They didn't need nukes to blow up the World Trade Centre.

I would be forced to agree, I quickly found that when I was in Afghanistan I was fighting a pointless war against people who viewed me as an agressive invader(though many civllians also welcomed the relife from the Taliban)

99% of soliders will tell you they fight to protect themselves and there fellow soliders, king country and things like "The moral right" are way down the pecking order.

To some Afghans and Iraqis our troops are the bad guys, is this just a matter of perspective? Footballers may cheat, lie, spit, swear, fight etc. but they don't have the option to shoot anyone in their job description.

Agreed

I would like someone to explain to me why they joined the forces, or if they have applied, what were the reasons? I want to travel the world and learn new skills, but I don't believe I could risk my life, miss my family, and kill other people to do so. If the job benefits are so strong to face those circumstances, do soldiers really need to be paid higher wages?

I joined for two main reasons
1)My family has been military for seven generations mostly officers but enlisted as well so I joined as a matter of family pride and an expectation that I and my siblings would just do it because it was what was to be done.

2)I wanted a job with good pay, opportunities for travel, sport, leisure, gaining qualifactions and seeing exciting and cool things.

I was not disappointed on any count, I was paid very well and had next to no outgoings, I traveled to various countries for peace and combat, I played a lot of sport and represented my Corp and service, I developed a fantastic social life and made a lot of good friends, saw combat , had a brilliant job with rank and power and when I leaft, I was still a young man with a wealth of brilliant life experiences under my belt.
I even managed to do the first two years of a long-distance degree during all of this , which I finished once I leaft.

All in all, pretty brilliant aye?

So what do you think? Am I misinformed? Am I talking ********? Please tell me if you agree or disagree, and what with. If I don't understand, I want to understand. This is how people learn and develop as a society. Please do not let this turn into an argument fuelled by emotions. Offer facts and educated opinions so that we may understand each other, and maybe even learn something new.

I more or less agree with you, anyone can be a solidier and they are not all the Heroes we are told to belive they are.

Footballers are wanted and talented individuals who we create a demand for, what they earn is our fault.

[Three Mile Sprint]

(Original post by moonkatt)
Female soldiers do go out on patrol and face as much risk as male soldiers due to the nature of combat in Afghanistan.

Not as often, and they are still barred from pure Combat trades.

Officers and section leaders are still hesitant and loathe to allow females to do the same rate of patrol and action as the male counterparts.

[moonkatt]

(Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
Not as often, and they are still barred from pure Combat trades.

Officers and section leaders are still hesitant and loathe to allow females to do the same rate of patrol and action as the male counterparts.

However they get out on the ground. It was more to make a point about the pay that other guy was getting at. With the way things are in Afghanistan pretty much anyone is at risk of getting hit, especially with the threat of green on blue violence now.

[Pedd]

I've always hated this line of argument. On ideals perhaps some could say that soldiers deserve more than footballers. However, the reason that footballers get paid so much is because they generate so much money. Solders generate no income for the system at all (unless supposed oil discoveries come into question), they are essentially a money pit.

[TaylorGang_4]

People who use this phrase do not think about it thoroughly. Footballers' wages are funded by the clubs revenue, soldiers are funded by the government who has to pay for other things such as the educational system, child benefits, housing benefits, foreign aid etc etc. If soldiers were to receive wages of £70,000 a week, the country would be bankrupt.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[RainbowWithAnI]

and how exactly is the government going to be able to afford to pay footballers wages to everyone in the army?

And also, you talk about not wanting this to become an argument fuelled by emotion but emotional response is the only reason why anyone would put forward this argument anyway...

[TaylorGang_4]

Also, if people feel strongly about soldiers earning less than footballers, why don't they donate £45 towards the armed forces? Instead of contributing towards the footballers wages, they would be contributing towards the forces.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Scumbaggio]

(Original post by MopHead)
Believe it or not, it is true. The army will not take anyone who does not have Grades C or higher. If you do not have the grades then they will not take you, they will most likely tell you to go back to school if you want to join, but not only that, they like you to have a bit of work experience.

My dad has just finished his 23 years of the army and we have moved out of Germany (Was a part of the British Forces in Germany, was Fuseliers but then became 3 Mercian), and back when he joined the army, you did not need a thing. However the law has changed and the army will not accept anyone with a low set of grades.

In the army you can do courses and they will get your grades up.

But here's what they look at:

* Science + Physical Education would do good in becoming a Engineer/Vehicle Mechanic/Bomb Squad/Medic

You need the Chemistry levels to know what goes on in a Bomb.
You need the Physics levels to be a good Gun/Vehicle Mechanic
You need Biology to be a good Medic/Doctor to perform Levels 1,2,3 treatments to soldiers in battle

Or you could do whatever you wanted but you need the grades to do it!
Only thing that don't really require much is Forces Dog Handling.

Therefore MarioBrother's is correct.

Ok interesting.

I guess they would accept adult numeracy and literacy qualifications?

My GCSEs are ok nothing amazing everything above a C but I didn't do P.E. Would that actually matter if I were to apply?