|
Post by warehamgas on Aug 5, 2020 16:15:02 GMT
Istm if we're realistically competing with half the teams in the league we have more chance of promotion than if we're competing with (nearly) all of them. In any case, I thnk you're getting confused about the meaning of what I said. Objecting to something coz I think it's against the interests of football in general is nothing like wanting Rovers to fail. I've already said I don't think the new rules will favour us; that's just not the basis of my objection to them. We've usually got a mid table budget, with most of the teams below us probably only spending slightly less apart from the likes of Accrington, who normally beat us anyway!, I can't see those teams suddenly spending more than they can afford anyway. However, the teams I listed in my previous post spend far more than we do, Sunderland spent something like £10m and Pompey £4m last season, so instead of 8 to 10 teams spending more, half dozen or so spending similar and the rest spending less we'll now have around 20 clubs all spending similar, in theory anyway. As far as football in general we all say EFL need to stop spending money on players wages/agents fees but as soon as a plan is proposed fans start saying, they want some clubs to still pay the likes Bennett £4K+ per week!! Come on Topper, you know that it will all be about the devil in the detail and as we speak, some clubs will have their lawyers on it already looking for loopholes whilst the EFL are smiling on totally oblivious to what’s really happening. And I am totally confused as to why a team like Sunderland would not be able to use their 30,000 crowds to attract the players they want. It would be like saying to us in 2014, “I’m sorry BRFC you will now have to have the same budget as Braintree Town, forget the fact that you get crowds of 6000 and Braintree get 400.” It just goes against any basic principle that clubs should have the right to spend their income responsibly. That some clubs choose not to do so responsibly should not penalise the clubs that do and attract crowds that enable them to do so. And those clubs that don’t act responsibly go to the wall or face administration. EFL should have been policing those clubs who act in such a way, no need for new rules, just new ways to police them. I bet the new board of AFC Bury will do things differently to the last two owners! The EFL should be looking to use the existing rules over FFP, tightening up rules over % of income to be spent on playing staffs. There is no need to introduce new rules that we all know will not be policed. All it will do will create more uncertainty and the end of the season will become one huge VAR question. There will be charges, appeals, turning down of appeals and possible legal challenges because whatever is decided the EFL will not have a scooby-doo how to enforce it. They haven’t in th least why would it be different in the future? UTG! ps. I should of course add that I respect your opinion that it may improve things. I don’t believe that but appreciate that you and others will do. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. No criticism of your views were intended. 😀
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 5, 2020 17:23:08 GMT
Wasn't the new playing budget rules originally pursued by the lower league owners not the EFL? As I said something has to be done to stop lower league clubs going bust, the club's whining about it Sunderland, Pompey and Ipswich have all either got massive debts or had them in the past, so it's not as if they've always been able to show they were able to manage their finances in the past.
If the EFL brought in a budget based on attendances how would posters feel if we lost JCH and Kilgour this summer as the 3 clubs I've mentioned could offer them double the wages whilst still staying within the new budget?
As far as chopping and changing my views dependent on how they affect Rovers, isn't that just what Wael will do? As things stands this seems the best solution for lower league football including Rovers.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 5, 2020 17:34:07 GMT
If the EFL brought in a budget based on attendances how would posters feel if we lost JCH and Kilgour this summer as the 3 clubs I've mentioned could offer them double the wages whilst still staying within the new budget? That's not much of an argument, coz a salary cap will mean Championship clubs will be able to take L1/2 players cheaper, any way. No club will ever be able to hang on to their hopeful up-and-comer or stand-out player by paying them more. Also, we've never really had much of a problem (in comparison) with teams in the same league as us taking players. The problem has much more often been when they are wanted in higher leagues, and that will get worse.
|
|
|
Post by alanrg on Aug 5, 2020 17:42:14 GMT
I am reading a report regarding squad sizes it states that it will more than likely be implemented in 2021 /2022 so that clubs can get there house in order
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 5, 2020 20:08:07 GMT
If the EFL brought in a budget based on attendances how would posters feel if we lost JCH and Kilgour this summer as the 3 clubs I've mentioned could offer them double the wages whilst still staying within the new budget? That's not much of an argument, coz a salary cap will mean Championship clubs will be able to take L1/2 players cheaper, any way. No club will ever be able to hang on to their hopeful up-and-comer or stand-out player by paying them more. Also, we've never really had much of a problem (in comparison) with teams in the same league as us taking players. The problem has much more often been when they are wanted in higher leagues, and that will get worse. Precisily as things stand we can offer JCH etc a decent wage, if we're stuck at a £2.5m budget whilst Pompey have a budget of £4m it might not be so easy. Whatever happens we'll always lose players to Championship sides, restricting our budget to £2.5m from £3m/£3.5m isn't going to change that.
|
|
|
Post by eastgas on Aug 5, 2020 21:06:47 GMT
I can see how these proposed changes are going to split people’s thoughts. It’s hard to make a judgement, as each club will have reasons for and against it and it will benefit some and not others. I personally don’t like what they are proposing. If you separate yourself from your feeling toward your club and try to look at it from the outside these sort of rules do not benefit the game. These rules would work wonders in a closed league system where there are no promotion or relegation. It would create a more level playing field similar to the NFL but we don’t play in a closed league. How can they could police these changes? If you had three teams relegated from championship who are all at their maximum £18M cap how can you possibly force them to reduce that to be in line with league ones salary cap? It just wouldn’t happen, we would end up with those 3 teams being told they have a set number of seasons to fall in line and would put them at a massive advantage over the teams currently in league 1. I don’t have the answers but I feel a slight change up of the current FFP rules would be far better. Maybe like some have suggested on here to have a budget based on % of turnover and heavy penalties for people breaching their limits. Maybe you could have a maximum amount of turnover that you can set your budget against? That would allow the top earning teams to spend slightly more but not as much disparity that we have currently. That still doesn’t solve the issue of relegated champ teams though
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Aug 6, 2020 7:54:06 GMT
I can see how these proposed changes are going to split people’s thoughts. It’s hard to make a judgement, as each club will have reasons for and against it and it will benefit some and not others. I personally don’t like what they are proposing. If you separate yourself from your feeling toward your club and try to look at it from the outside these sort of rules do not benefit the game. These rules would work wonders in a closed league system where there are no promotion or relegation. It would create a more level playing field similar to the NFL but we don’t play in a closed league. How can they could police these changes? If you had three teams relegated from championship who are all at their maximum £18M cap how can you possibly force them to reduce that to be in line with league ones salary cap? It just wouldn’t happen, we would end up with those 3 teams being told they have a set number of seasons to fall in line and would put them at a massive advantage over the teams currently in league 1. I don’t have the answers but I feel a slight change up of the current FFP rules would be far better. Maybe like some have suggested on here to have a budget based on % of turnover and heavy penalties for people breaching their limits. Maybe you could have a maximum amount of turnover that you can set your budget against? That would allow the top earning teams to spend slightly more but not as much disparity that we have currently. That still doesn’t solve the issue of relegated champ teams though Great post, I agree entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Wembley_Gas on Aug 6, 2020 9:08:14 GMT
I can see how these proposed changes are going to split people’s thoughts. It’s hard to make a judgement, as each club will have reasons for and against it and it will benefit some and not others. I personally don’t like what they are proposing. If you separate yourself from your feeling toward your club and try to look at it from the outside these sort of rules do not benefit the game. These rules would work wonders in a closed league system where there are no promotion or relegation. It would create a more level playing field similar to the NFL but we don’t play in a closed league. How can they could police these changes? If you had three teams relegated from championship who are all at their maximum £18M cap how can you possibly force them to reduce that to be in line with league ones salary cap? It just wouldn’t happen, we would end up with those 3 teams being told they have a set number of seasons to fall in line and would put them at a massive advantage over the teams currently in league 1. I don’t have the answers but I feel a slight change up of the current FFP rules would be far better. Maybe like some have suggested on here to have a budget based on % of turnover and heavy penalties for people breaching their limits. Maybe you could have a maximum amount of turnover that you can set your budget against? That would allow the top earning teams to spend slightly more but not as much disparity that we have currently. That still doesn’t solve the issue of relegated champ teams though Yep, there is the issue that the first season after the salary cap is voted in, even if all three Leagues vote in favour, that all the 16 promoted and relegated teams (3 down, 3 up, 4 down, 4 up, 2 up) are under a salary cap they did not vote for. Whilst we’ve been looking at the point of view of a Championship club coming down I don’t think it would be a bed of roses for an L1 club going up either! If, for example, Accrington or Rochdale, known to be under tight budgets already, got promoted to the Championship, whilst their cap would increase almost seven fold, the players who took them up and are still in contract will expect either a renegotiation of their current deal or new signings to be restricted to the same lower scale. Any Championship quality player they try to sign will quote them the average wage for the division and thus either look elsewhere or force a wage restructure at the club. An alternative might be to sign better L1 standard players on L1 style wages and hope to survive with them. The results would range from a) a hopelessly outgunned team having an unhappy season in the Championship b) a team that is a mix of low budget promoted players and averagely paid Championship players, probably dressing room schisms and in all probability a dysfunctional team c) a team where both promoted players and new acquisitions are on the same wage structure but this is unsustainable for the size of the club and whilst there is harmony on the pitch there is financial strain in the boardroom.
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Aug 6, 2020 9:11:49 GMT
I can see how these proposed changes are going to split people’s thoughts. It’s hard to make a judgement, as each club will have reasons for and against it and it will benefit some and not others. I personally don’t like what they are proposing. If you separate yourself from your feeling toward your club and try to look at it from the outside these sort of rules do not benefit the game. These rules would work wonders in a closed league system where there are no promotion or relegation. It would create a more level playing field similar to the NFL but we don’t play in a closed league. How can they could police these changes? If you had three teams relegated from championship who are all at their maximum £18M cap how can you possibly force them to reduce that to be in line with league ones salary cap? It just wouldn’t happen, we would end up with those 3 teams being told they have a set number of seasons to fall in line and would put them at a massive advantage over the teams currently in league 1. I don’t have the answers but I feel a slight change up of the current FFP rules would be far better. Maybe like some have suggested on here to have a budget based on % of turnover and heavy penalties for people breaching their limits. Maybe you could have a maximum amount of turnover that you can set your budget against? That would allow the top earning teams to spend slightly more but not as much disparity that we have currently. That still doesn’t solve the issue of relegated champ teams though Yep, there is the issue that the first season after the salary cap is voted in, even if all three Leagues vote in favour, that all the 16 promoted and relegated teams (3 down, 3 up, 4 down, 4 up, 2 up) are under a salary cap they did not vote for. Whilst we’ve been looking at the point of view of a Championship club coming down I don’t think it would be a bed of roses for an L1 club going up either! If, for example, Accrington or Rochdale, known to be under tight budgets already, got promoted to the Championship, whilst their cap would increase almost seven fold, the players who took them up and are still in contract will expect either a renegotiation of their current deal or new signings to be restricted to the same lower scale. Any Championship quality player they try to sign will quote them the average wage for the division and thus either look elsewhere or force a wage restructure at the club. An alternative might be to sign better L1 standard players on L1 style wages and hope to survive with them. The results would range from a) a hopelessly outgunned team having an unhappy season in the Championship b) a team that is a mix of low budget promoted players and averagely paid Championship players, probably dressing room schisms and in all probability a dysfunctional team c) a team where both promoted players and new acquisitions are on the same wage structure but this is unsustainable for the size of the club and whilst there is harmony on the pitch there is financial strain in the boardroom. You'd have thought that the EFL would have thought this through carefully. Sadly, I doubt they have a clue of the implications of this. Either that or they simply don't care.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Aug 6, 2020 10:57:29 GMT
The consideration of the salary cap is a good thing. Any initiative to protect clubs from financial ruin has to be good. I don’t think the salary cap would do that for all the reasons posters have said. But when you have a situation like this I guess you should go back to first principles, what are you trying to achieve? I would suggest that what the EFL and the clubs are trying to do is create a financial climate where clubs’ finances are sustainable. In other words having a financial model that means that expenditure goes hand in hand with income. Others may disagree but that’s what I think lies behind much of this discussion. If that is the case then because of the vast disparity of clubs in League 1 (in any league I guess) to have a one size fits all clubs is pretty unworkable. That’s why if you are looking to create sustainability in football finances then those two variables expenditure and income have to go hand in hand and that’s why implementing the current rules over % of income against player expenditure should be strengthened. Salary caps don’t consider incomes and their relationship to expenditure, it considers expenditure alone. Considering % of income for player expenditure recognise that relationship. That would allow relegated, promoted clubs and all clubs, imo, greater control over their finances. I think that those rules already exist, if they don’t then I apologise because I thought they did. They certainly did back in the “noughties”. The problem remains that whatever you do it will need to be policed by the EFL and they have shown they are completely inept at over-seeing rules and their being kept to. They respond so late and I’m pretty sure few clubs have any confidence in their ability to organise anything. Just off the top of my head I’m thinking about Bolton, Bury, Blackpool, now Sheffield W, Derby, Macclesfield. I’m sure you will be able to think of others as well. I’d be very surprised if anything is agreed for season 2020-21 more likely, if anything, for 2021-22. Time will tell. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 6, 2020 11:56:33 GMT
Can I just throw a spanner in the works by asking why an owner shouldn't be able to spend whatever he likes on players? If they cost what they do and demand a wage as they do, then why not?
What I think ought to happen is the vasts sums of money paid to the Premiership clubs by SKY, FA etc should be spread amongst the lower leagues far better than they are now.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 6, 2020 13:02:06 GMT
I can see how these proposed changes are going to split people’s thoughts. It’s hard to make a judgement, as each club will have reasons for and against it and it will benefit some and not others. I personally don’t like what they are proposing. If you separate yourself from your feeling toward your club and try to look at it from the outside these sort of rules do not benefit the game. These rules would work wonders in a closed league system where there are no promotion or relegation. It would create a more level playing field similar to the NFL but we don’t play in a closed league. How can they could police these changes? If you had three teams relegated from championship who are all at their maximum £18M cap how can you possibly force them to reduce that to be in line with league ones salary cap? It just wouldn’t happen, we would end up with those 3 teams being told they have a set number of seasons to fall in line and would put them at a massive advantage over the teams currently in league 1. I don’t have the answers but I feel a slight change up of the current FFP rules would be far better. Maybe like some have suggested on here to have a budget based on % of turnover and heavy penalties for people breaching their limits. Maybe you could have a maximum amount of turnover that you can set your budget against? That would allow the top earning teams to spend slightly more but not as much disparity that we have currently. That still doesn’t solve the issue of relegated champ teams though Yep, there is the issue that the first season after the salary cap is voted in, even if all three Leagues vote in favour, that all the 16 promoted and relegated teams (3 down, 3 up, 4 down, 4 up, 2 up) are under a salary cap they did not vote for. Whilst we’ve been looking at the point of view of a Championship club coming down I don’t think it would be a bed of roses for an L1 club going up either! If, for example, Accrington or Rochdale, known to be under tight budgets already, got promoted to the Championship, whilst their cap would increase almost seven fold, the players who took them up and are still in contract will expect either a renegotiation of their current deal or new signings to be restricted to the same lower scale. Any Championship quality player they try to sign will quote them the average wage for the division and thus either look elsewhere or force a wage restructure at the club. An alternative might be to sign better L1 standard players on L1 style wages and hope to survive with them. The results would range from a) a hopelessly outgunned team having an unhappy season in the Championship b) a team that is a mix of low budget promoted players and averagely paid Championship players, probably dressing room schisms and in all probability a dysfunctional team c) a team where both promoted players and new acquisitions are on the same wage structure but this is unsustainable for the size of the club and whilst there is harmony on the pitch there is financial strain in the boardroom. But that is no different than Wycombe, or Oxford, getting promoted this season both probably have wage budgets around £2.5m/£3.5m but will be competing next season with clubs who have £20m+ budgets. Not sure a Championship club having a big budget is a recipe for success looking at Sunderland and Ipswich last season. Championship quality players playing in L1 doesn't seem to work.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 6, 2020 13:04:40 GMT
Can I just throw a spanner in the works by asking why an owner shouldn't be able to spend whatever he likes on players? If they cost what they do and demand a wage as they do, then why not? What I think ought to happen is the vasts sums of money paid to the Premiership clubs by SKY, FA etc should be spread amongst the lower leagues far better than they are now. Because Bury's owner clearly spent money he didn't have? Is there any real logic in us paying KB £4,500 a week but we had to pay it in order to sign a, supposedly, decent L1 winger.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 6, 2020 13:14:41 GMT
Can I just throw a spanner in the works by asking why an owner shouldn't be able to spend whatever he likes on players? If they cost what they do and demand a wage as they do, then why not? What I think ought to happen is the vasts sums of money paid to the Premiership clubs by SKY, FA etc should be spread amongst the lower leagues far better than they are now. Because Bury's owner clearly spent money he didn't have? Is there any real logic in us paying KB £4,500 a week but we had to pay it in order to sign a, supposedly, decent L1 winger. Doesn't that show up the inept EFL for allowing someone to purchase the club? As for KB, someone signed that off when the contracts were put infront of them. Not really anything to do with enforced spending limits.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Aug 6, 2020 14:25:25 GMT
Can I just throw a spanner in the works by asking why an owner shouldn't be able to spend whatever he likes on players? If they cost what they do and demand a wage as they do, then why not? What I think ought to happen is the vasts sums of money paid to the Premiership clubs by SKY, FA etc should be spread amongst the lower leagues far better than they are now. Because Bury's owner clearly spent money he didn't have? Is there any real logic in us paying KB £4,500 a week but we had to pay it in order to sign a, supposedly, decent L1 winger. I’ve been on here saying clubs should have the opportunity to spend money responsibly but Day and Dale the last two Bury bosses were clearly incapable of acting with any financial responsibility. The former spending money he didn’t have the latter thinking he’s pulled a fast one by buying a club for £1 without due diligence. And of course that is the weakness in my argument but Bury is not a good example, it is the extreme of financial mismanagement. For every Bury there is a Rochdale and a Burton and a Newport and many others. No, there is no logic in paying KB whatever it is but I’d say the lack of logic is from a football point of view because he’s poor. From a financial logic had he come off it would have been a great investment, £250,000 to take us to the Championship would have been peanuts. It’s the recruitment or the football side of it that’s been rubbish, had it come off it would have been a master stroke. No guarantees with transfers as we know. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 6, 2020 15:50:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Aug 6, 2020 15:57:35 GMT
So 22 player's, falling to only 20 the following season. So what do teams do that already have more than that contracted for the following season?? Will be harder to offload player's, as a lot of clubs, will have too many players already. So what happens to all these players? 20 is that not big. Most teams will have 2 goalkeepers, so that only leaves a squad of 18 outfield player's.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 6, 2020 16:35:57 GMT
I guess they drop down to the National Leagues, or get normal jobs and then play part time? I don't understand the squad restriction idea as why can't we have, say, 22 players but on slightly less money each than another club with 20 players.
Glad I'm not a pro footballer looking for a new contract as you must wonder where the next payday is coming from if you have a big mortgage/rent/PCP etc based on a pre CV19 contract.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Aug 6, 2020 17:23:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by eastgas on Aug 6, 2020 18:16:01 GMT
Can I just throw a spanner in the works by asking why an owner shouldn't be able to spend whatever he likes on players? If they cost what they do and demand a wage as they do, then why not? What I think ought to happen is the vasts sums of money paid to the Premiership clubs by SKY, FA etc should be spread amongst the lower leagues far better than they are now. I see your point and it should ultimately be down to the owners to set their own budgets but has to be done with sustainability in mind. The trouble is when you look into the finances in football it’s clear to see there are so many clubs on the brink of financial ruin. Something needs to be done to stop more situations like Burt, Bolton, Wigan etc etc. For me though I don’t think league standard salary caps are the way forward. Something needs to be organised between all 92 clubs and it’s something that will take a year or more to come up with a viable solution not a knee jerk vote in the reaction to Covid
|
|