[Closed] David Beckham £14000 a night hotel...something not right about that

You are right charlie. It's really difficult for me to understand that kind of wealthvwithout thinking it is hugely selfish to blow 20 grand in a night. But if you are making 250grand a week that seems normal?it's pretty ****ed up imo. Local charity here needs 4 million a year to provide for terminally kids and their families, surely amyone with that kind of cash would refrain fdom the luxury for a bit to help vthe dying kiddies? I suppose this thread is all about moral relativism. Which makes it interesting!

moral relativism

You got it in one !

I'm not jealous of his or any other wealthy person I have my own wealth relative to me, which doesn't necessarily include money as a top priority.

Have a fun eve whilst I feast on these

http://www.caspiancaviar.co.uk/products/Royal-Beluga-Caviar.aspx
followed by
http://www.caspiancaviar.co.uk/products/fresh-white-truffles.aspx

Yeah, but choose any third world country and look at what £100 a month will buy there to support education or combat disease and see if you can sacrifice non-essentials to that amount. Then see if you so it.

He's giving people in 13k a night hotels a reason to feel inadequate/work harder/[s]dodge[/s] pay more taxes so is only filling his space in the hierarchy.

You could always move to a communist country because don't forget there can only be two ways.

Team Twitter vs Team Dictatorship.

Buy your iphone or learn to march. It's them or us.

Local charity here needs 4 million a year to provide for terminally kids and their families, surely amyone with that kind of cash would refrain fdom the luxury for a bit to help vthe dying kiddies? I suppose this thread is all about moral relativism. Which makes it interesting!

correct me if i'm wrong but i'm sure Beckhams(s) give very generously to charity as it is. I'm sure they would love to try and go round all 180,000 registerd charities

[url= http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/About_us/mp_factsheet2.pdf ]charities[/url]

and save everyone but its not all possible. David does alot for charity

[url= http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/david-beckham ]david beckham[/url]

and i think you need to maybe look at other rich celebs other than someone who does very generously for charity as it is. Brand Beckham is worth so many millions to any club he signs that he practically has a free reign in the club/city

Local charity here needs 4 million a year to provide for terminally kids and their families, surely amyone with that kind of cash would refrain fdom the luxury for a bit to help vthe dying kiddies? I suppose this thread is all about moral relativism. Which makes it interesting!

correct me if i'm wrong but i'm sure Beckhams(s) give very generously to charity as it is. I'm sure they would love to try and go round all 180,000 registerd charities

[url= http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/About_us/mp_factsheet2.pdf ]charities[/url]

and save everyone but its not all possible. David does alot for charity

[url= http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/david-beckham ]david beckham[/url]

and i think you need to maybe look at other rich celebs other than someone who does very generously for charity as it is. Brand Beckham is worth so many millions to any club he signs that he practically has a free reign in the club/city

exactly, the guy probably makes more money for charity than the collective readership of STW, whether that's through his own donations, being the face of Help for Heroes or being an ambassador for UNICEF.
he's the flipside of the coin of rich people you should be directing your ire at.

microsoft bill gates is giving all his billions towards wiping out polio not living it up in fancy hotels. What an example he sets for the uber-rich!

Bill and Melinda were married on January 1, 1994 on the Hawaiian island of Lanai. The island has no stoplights, has 47 miles of coastline, lots of white sand, and is only 18 miles long and 13 miles wide.
To insure their privacy for the day of their wedding, [b]Bill rented every hotel room at the hotel (250 rooms)[/b] and chartered every helicopter close by.

Bill and Melinda's [b]$1 million, 15-minute, seaside wedding[/b] ceremony took place on the 12th tee of the Manele Bay Hotel golf course. William J. Sullivan S.J., Seattle University Chancellor, was the presider of the wedding ceremony and Steve Balllmer was Bill's best man.

Bill wore black slacks and a white dinner jacket. Melinda wore a $10,000 wedding gown designed by Victoria Glenn of Seattle. The white dress was made out of silk-faced organza.

meh

The Bridge Suite, The Atlantis, Bahamas
Nightly Rate: $22.000

The Bridge Suite is located on top of a bridge that connects the two Royal Towers buildings, so it overlooks the entire resort and marina. An 800 square foot balcony and 12-foot high ceilings throughout with full length windows allow you to enjoy a 360 view of the water, lagoons and pools in Paradise Island. We can make a guess that most of the price is paid for the location of the suite. Forbes reports the suite has hosted guests including Oprah, Michael Jackson, Celine Dion, and [b]Bill Gates[/b].

meh meh

No, but you should be flogged through the streets for the use of the word 'paycheck', unless you are actually are an American.

In which case, you have my sympathy - it must be awful for you.

Way to show yourself as a first class prick. And yes: I did spend my formative years in America: I am proud, and thankful of that fact.

Anyway, back to Becks:

a) Zlatan Ibrahimovic stayed in the same hotel when he joined PSG
b) PSG give Becks £30,000 a month towards hotel bills.
c) Yes, he has earnt his money: A sportsperson is only worth what people will pay to watch them. At the end of the day, Becks is a big draw for any club.
d) As someone has already said: Becks has done more for charity than any of you ever will.
e) People have compared Becks to Bill Gates: Bill Gates is worth $65 BILLION, and that's after giving away $28 billion. Becks is worth £140 MILLION. I don't see much comparison.

Way to show yourself as a first class prick. And yes: I did spend my formative years in America: I am proud, and thankful of that fact.

So presumably you don't share an appreciation for the very British art of self-deprecating humour ?

There was no self-deprecating humour (which I share in abundance) there, it was casual racism, which is a very British trait I do my best to avoid.

on the subject....

The original article is basically exactly what the hotel wanted, some publicity. Following that somebody at the BBC blagged a jolly to spend a say looking at really posh hotels and wrote a mediocre article for the "And Finally" section. I'm assuming somebody made him delete the number of nights you could have stayed in a travel inn next to the A38 for the same price as 1 night there.

Beckham will not be paying £14,000 per night. In contrast if you were going to spend some time working in Paris you could get an apartment etc. and then hire a cleaner, chef, driver and a few others to look after you while you stayed there. The hotel probably comes out fairly well in comparison. Beckham has made his money doing something, you may not agree how or the amount be he earned the money. If he was blowing tax payers money then you could see an issue. The rest boils down to a combination of lazy journalism and jealousy.

Hotel uses money to pay staff, staff use money to buy things those businesses use that money to pay staff etc. Everyone wins.

Correction, hotel owner and shareholders earn a small fortune which they hoard whilst the highly trained chefs earn below living wages - the majority of the staff won't enough to drive the economy through consumer spending.

Deary me, the politics of envy! Perhaps you really ought to berate the (frequently) obscenely wealthy leaders of the countries who squirrel away billions of dollars while their people starve, and fight wars on behalf of the despots who involve them in those wars.

Despots don't lead to nearly as many starving people as capitalism's ability to create insane divides between the wealthy and poor does.

....it was casual racism, which is a very British trait I do my best to avoid.

So according to you the British are racist ? 🙂

Well according to one fellow countryman of yours, who should know a thing or two about racism, the British "aren't very good at it"

Despots don't lead to nearly as many starving people as capitalism's ability to create insane divides between the wealthy and poor does.

Oh, and socialism has never created any social divides whatsoever?

So according to you the British are racist ?

The British are brilliant at casual racism, and practice it all the time.

Oh, and socialism has never created any social divides whatsoever?

Discounting communism, certainly less than capitalism.

Back to the original point though how many people would not stay somewhere nice if you had £140 million?

chartzz concerning the USA

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Keep up with the aspirational lifestyles though guys, I'm sure one day you to will get to experience the highs of Beckhams lifestyle - maybe the trickle down effect will one day mean you can buy that extension you've always longed after and a rolex. Maybe. Probably not.

Keep up with the aspirational lifestyles though guys, I'm sure one day you to will get to experience the highs of Beckhams lifestyle - maybe the trickle down effect will one day mean you can buy that extension you've always longed after and a rolex. Maybe. Probably not.

To which I really don't care 🙂 He can do what he wants, and I will do what I want, and most importantly it's got nothing to do with anybody else.

To which I really don't care He can do what he wants, and I will do what I want, and most importantly it's got nothing to do with anybody else.

It's got plenty do with everyone else - greed, wealth inequality and consumption affects us all.

You see unlike what Thatcher would have you believe that isn't the case, we live in a society. We have laws and you cannot just do as you want - society if it deems fit has the ability to take your wealth off you. You have to be able to get on with other people and live with them side by side, you can't expect utter adherence to privacy and individualism.

Hopefully the majority will one day wake up to realize the extent to which they are being ****ed.

Here's a nice article from The American Conservative that should hopefully make you think.

I think this applies to you in particular, with your disregard for having to co-operate with you fellow man.

Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and ruling it, but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; if one owns a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension—and viable public transportation doesn’t even show up on the radar screen. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?

Being in the country but not of it is what gives the contemporary American super-rich their quality of being abstracted and clueless.

This bit was also good.

That wealth-worship—and a consequent special status for the wealthy as a kind of clerisy—should have arisen in the United States is hardly surprising, given the peculiar sort of Protestantism that was planted here from the British Isles. Starting with the Puritanism of New England, there has been a long and intimate connection between the sanctification of wealth and America’s economic and social relationships. The rich are a class apart because they are the elect.

Most present-day Americans, if they think about the historical roots of our wealth-worship at all, will say something about free markets, rugged individualism, and the Horatio Alger myth—all in a purely secular context. But perhaps the most notable 19th-century exponent of wealth as virtue and poverty as the mark of Cain was Russell Herman Conwell, a canny Baptist minister, founder of perhaps the first tabernacle large enough that it could later be called a megachurch, and author of the immensely famous “Acres of Diamonds” speech of 1890 that would make him a rich man. This is what he said:

I say that you ought to get rich, and it is your duty to get rich. … The men who get rich may be the most honest men you find in the community. Let me say here clearly … ninety-eight out of one hundred of the rich men of America are honest. That is why they are rich. That is why they are trusted with money. … I sympathize with the poor, but the number of poor who are to be sympathized with is very small. To sympathize with a man whom God has punished for his sins … is to do wrong … let us remember there is not a poor person in the United States who was not made poor by his own shortcomings.

Evidently Conwell was made of sterner stuff than the sob-sister moralizing in the Sermon on the Mount. Somewhat discordantly, though, Conwell had been drummed out of the military during the Civil War for deserting his post. For Conwell, as for the modern tax-avoiding expat billionaire, the dollar sign tends to trump Old Glory.

The conjoining of wealth, Christian morality, and the American way of life reached an apotheosis in Bruce Barton’s 1925 book The Man Nobody Knows. The son of a Congregationalist minister, Barton, who was an advertising executive, depicted Jesus as a successful salesman, publicist, and the very role model of the modern businessman.

But this peculiarly American creed took a severe hit after the crash of 1929, and wealth ceased to be equated with godliness. While the number of Wall Street suicides has been exaggerated in national memory, Jesse Livermore, perhaps the most famous of the Wall Street speculators, shot himself, and so did several others of his profession. There was then still a lingering old-fashioned sense of shame now generally absent from the über-rich. While many of the elites hated Franklin Roosevelt—consider the famous New Yorker cartoon wherein the rich socialite tells her companions, “Come along. We’re going to the Trans-Lux to hiss Roosevelt”—most had the wit to make a calculated bet that they would have to give a little of their wealth, power, and prestige to retain the rest, particularly with the collapsing parliamentary systems of contemporary Europe in mind. Even a bootlegging brigand like Joe Kennedy Sr. reconciled himself to the New Deal.

and

The objective of the predatory super-rich and their political handmaidens is to discredit and destroy the traditional nation state and auction its resources to themselves. Those super-rich, in turn, aim to create a “tollbooth” economy, whereby more and more of our highways, bridges, libraries, parks, and beaches are possessed by private oligarchs who will extract a toll from the rest of us. Was this the vision of the Founders? Was this why they believed governments were instituted among men—that the very sinews of the state should be possessed by the wealthy in the same manner that kingdoms of the Old World were the personal property of the monarch?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/

it was casual racism, which is a very British trait [u]I do my best to avoid[/u].

Clearly not hard enough.

Hint: Even an American should be able to work out that branding an entire nation racist is a pretty ironic statement 😉

You could always move to a communist country because don't forget there can only be two ways.

Team Twitter vs Team Dictatorship.

Buy your iphone or learn to march. It's them or us.

American? Or satire?

I couldn't care less. The sun will still come up tomorrow, I'll ride my bike on my days off, meet mates for a drink in the week and cuddle up to Mrs Deviant when I go to bed again.
Life is good and far too short to be worrying about someone spending a lot on a hotel room, there have always been haves and have nots, it's up to the individual to make their life as good as possible... life is too short to get worked up about things like this.
I wonder how much more people would enjoy life if they spent less time fussing over other people's business and focused instead on their own pleasures?

While it is a large headline price tag I doubt very much that price will be paid.

I would also ask what you would suggest as an alternative place for Becks to stay would be? A star like him demands certain media and unwanted attention, part of the reason he is no doubt staying there is for security both for him and visiting friends/family that will no doubt be with him.

I think they guys done more than his fair share for charity and you can't berate him for spending some of the money he's earnt by being a good footballer and an excellent businessman.

mikey74

d) As someone has already said: Becks has done more for charity than any of you ever will.

er no all he has done is give money !

has he devoted years of his life actually giving his time like us mere mortals that do so week in week out St.Johns ambulance to Life boat crew to animal sanctuary to volunteers that do respite and have to wipe arses...that's giving to charity not money yes the money helps but actually doing is worth far more...

I do recognize we cant all give our time but the money argument is a load of tosh we can all give money to charity relative to what we earn.

its an insult when

d) As someone has already said: Becks has done more for charity than any of you ever will.

Pity the oppressed, who are coerced into spending their hard "earned" (through sweat and toil) cash to watch some Wendyballers kick a ball around (or listen to the musically challenged)

Pity the oppressed, who are coerced into spending their hard "earned" cash on strips of brightly coloured polyester adorned with their hero's names

Pity the oppressed, who are coerced into spending their hard "earned" cash travelling the world to support their heros

Do they know what they are doing? Do they have free will? Well yes, they do. And they do it on a massive scale and to what extent? The extent that one wendyballer can contribute an estimated addtitional 400m euros alone merely by turning up. And said wendyballer can do that it different countries, even those where his chosen sport is alien to the domestic culture. Soccer, who ya kidding!

So where "exactly" is the absurdity in all that?

Of course, most cannot comprehend the idea of spending that money on a hotel room - it is beyond the realms of our comprehension and experience. But before we leap to our feet in codemnation, consider those who we are outraged for. How outraged would they feel about someone spending many years income on two wheels to ride down a hill. It beggars belief doesnt it?

If he wants to blow £14k a night on a hotel room so what? It's nothing to do with us. Even the bleeding hearts must be able to find someone more deserving of their scorn.

Or is it just a case of all rich people are evil?

It might be, not bothered reading the thread tbh. Too much effort.

as for moral relativism Becks is far from the worst in terms of what he gives but he is also far from some sort of paragon of virtue.

As for wealth distribution can someone explain to me why they would rather have billionairres than end starvation/eradicate poverty?

FWIW

So [the bottom]67% of the world's population (around 3 billion people) hold about 3.3% of total wealth at the basis of the pyramid. At the top of the pyramid, 0.5% of the population holds approximately 38% of the wealth. These are the dollars millionaires, which are overwhelmingly in the US, Europe and Japan.

Bottom 90% only own 18 % of the wealth
Its not easy to justify morally hence we get insults.
Simply we can have billionairres and millionairres or we can end starvation and educate the world

Pick which you prefer as per your own moral compass[ i am flattering some of you by assuming you have one 😉 ]

Rich people spend less of their money than the same wealth spread around to a lot of people. One theory why america and uk economy is tanking is due to the uneven wealth spread. Makes perfect sence to me.

As for wealth distribution can someone explain to me why they would rather have billionairres than end starvation/eradicate poverty?

A great question JY, and one that needs asking over and over again. Every week, instead of spending time to help others and the needy, [b]many millions prefer[/b] to spending money at football matches (the opportunity cost being [among others] donating the same money to charity) feeding the mouths of the millionaire players and (in some cases) billionaire owners. Every day, many millions turn on their Microsoft or Apple driven computers to "earn' money in front of a computer screen while others starve. So I ask again, where "exactly" is the absurdity in all that? In reality, are we not all just as guilty (sic) as David Beckham?

thm, your first post on this page was one of your most patronising I've seen in quite a while. Was that intended?

Oh and LOLz muchly at "wendyball". That's so funny maaaaan.

As someone has already said: Becks has done more for charity than any of you ever will.

er no all he has done is give money !

That's not true is it, I seem to remember Beckham giving plenty of his time to various charities.

My take on it: I find something slightly distasteful about hugely expensive hotels. Equally, someone living in poverty would find the fact that there are 4 computers in my house incredibly wasteful. It's all relative.

It's not David Beckhams fault is it though. We all have some responsibility and power to shape society, and we've chosen collectively to be selfish. Is there any great surprise in that?

Not sure why people are picking on Beckham - plenty of other wealthy people do far less. I must admit I thought it odd when I heard how much Elton John spends on flowers.

So what's the problem anyway? Those wealthy people have made their money through fair means, some haven't - perhaps the odd Russian Oligarch?!

The Chinese had a way of dealing with the wealthy a while ago, they killed them and took over their assets.

If patronising is holding up the mirror of absurdity to our modern lives, then DD yes guilty as charged. And the use of the equal absurd term "wendyball" is the journalistic technique of using another lens of absurdity to magnify the underlying absurdity itself. Beckham's choice of spending money on a hotel is the end of a long chain of choices that many make. To isolate one of them and cast (partonising?) judegments on extend of earning/morals is highly questionable IMO. Let's look at ourselves and our own decisions first.

[s]The Chinese had[/s]STW have a way of dealing with the wealthy[s] a while ago[/s], they kill[s]ed[/s] them and [s]took[/s]take over their assets.

All this from a story that is barley an actual news item and mostly a misrepresented headline (my brothers, cousins, sisters, neighbours, cats, dogs best friends uncle is the fluffer in the hotel)

I was wondering after reading some of this how good football is as a modern social service, taking money from rich corporations (sponsors) and redistributing it to mainly working class guys who otherwise would have very little. It's just like Robin Hood (not the Russel Crow version though)

Hint: Even an American should be able to work out that branding an entire nation racist is a pretty ironic statement

I didn't brand a whole nation racist. All I said was casual racism is prevalent throughout the UK. Casual racism is quite different to actual racism and is often used with good humour in this, and other, countries. Sometimes it's harmless, other times not so much.

A great question JY

If patronising is holding up the mirror of absurdity to our modern lives, then DD yes guilty as charged.

To isolate one of them and cast (partonising?) judegments on extend of earning/morals is highly questionable IMO.

Let's look at ourselves and our own decisions first.

As for wealth distribution can someone explain to me why they would rather have billionairres than end starvation/eradicate poverty?

Probably cheaper and easier for him to live there with security etc on short term rent, hotel will make sure they get the publicity and he may even be on a free or very reduced rate.

Rather than, rent or buy flat/house, have it made secure, have to get maid service, cleaners, personal shoppers, chef etc...

Seems like a bargain

wow spouts some nonesence then confesses they wont read

Today's prize for selective quoting and miss reading goes too........

Is this a thread where no one can articulate an opinion but they can snipe?

Make a point, if you can 😕

{ yes I know, Oh the ironing etc]

I made a statement you just didn't quote it and failed to see the ironing of the faux snipe

As for selective quoting, see approximately 50% of all your posts.

As for selective quoting, see approximately 50% of all your posts.

JY does a lot of posting. Have you just made that up on the fly or been through and counted for selective quoting?

I'll have a few quid on the answer.

I think you'd be safe wagering more than a few quid.

well I quote the bit i want to comment on - do I need to quote everything- do you realy want longer posts from me 😉
FWIW you only quoted half of what I wrote re your quote never mind my post - in essence we both did this and i dont think either was done for distortion but for brevity.
as for the claim I do this 50% of the time I neither think i do this nor think this is in any way accurate

I can have a problem with sports men/women getting rich and then spending there cash.

To save you re reading they say Not sure at the start of my selective quote
I dont do contextomy whatever you claim as it would be pointless in a debate

Ooh you cheeky blighter

I might even flounce for that.