|
Post by peterparker on Aug 5, 2020 11:20:58 GMT
The current % of turnover is fine. As always it is the EFL's Governance and rules that are the problem
A salary cap is ok in a closed league system to create fair competition or a clear distinction between a major league and minor league, but in our league system I don't see the point of a fixed salary cap.
What's the point of generating extra revenue if you can't spend it
|
|
|
Post by bodies on Aug 5, 2020 11:54:13 GMT
It’s not just the % of turnover that clubs are supposed not to exceed. Club owners are allowed to pump in as much money as they like as long as it’s gifted and not a loan that gets repaid. Also 100% of player sales and 100% of any Cup revenue is allowed.
I presume figures can be manipulated fairly easily so it appears any cap hasn’t been breached.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 5, 2020 11:59:18 GMT
It’s not just the % of turnover that clubs are supposed not to exceed. Club owners are allowed to pump in as much money as they like as long as it’s gifted and not a loan that gets repaid. Also 100% of player sales and 100% of any Cup revenue is allowed. I presume figures can be manipulated fairly easily so it appears any cap hasn’t been breached. So, buy a player, on the books he earns £5k a week, but as a side line he's also the owners gardener earning an exra £10k?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 5, 2020 12:18:13 GMT
The current % of turnover is fine. As always it is the EFL's Governance and rules that are the problem A salary cap is ok in a closed league system to create fair competition or a clear distinction between a major league and minor league, but in our league system I don't see the point of a fixed salary cap. What's the point of generating extra revenue if you can't spend itKeep if in reserve for when we're in the Championship?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 5, 2020 12:22:25 GMT
Sunderland have earned that advantage! They paid for the stadium in the first place, they have a large crowd and a lot of money coming in. But then they can't spend it?? Yes they could spend it on fees instead. But if they pay a big fee, is the player going to sign in for 2k a week?? Plus it includes agent fees. So any big transfer fee, will see the agent get a big pay out. If we ever manage to get a new stadium and have more money coming in. We shouldn't be able to raise the budget?? The club's that have gone into administration lately, were taken over by bad parties that just stopped paying. So how will this change, change that?? If they checked properly, then it wouldn't have happened. Plus like I said, I expect clubs like Accrington Stanley could actually spend more under this system, than they could before. It should always be a percentage. If that percentage is too high, lower it. 50% of turnover, 45% even. A percentage that would see clubs break even. This is a really good point and actually something I've never considered. I could fully understand the Sunderland boardroom being baffled about being held to the same financial constraints as the likes of Accrington when their attendances are literally 30-40x higher and revenues the same. But a great move by the smaller clubs, including Rovers, as they all have the same budgets in future, the clubs even all voted to reduce the % of clubs required to approve the changes, what's the opposite of chickens voting for Christmas? I can't understand why any Rovers fan is anti the budget as it's a perfect outcome for the club particularly whilst we're stuck playing at the Mem.
|
|
|
Post by neilv93 on Aug 5, 2020 12:25:30 GMT
This is a really good point and actually something I've never considered. I could fully understand the Sunderland boardroom being baffled about being held to the same financial constraints as the likes of Accrington when their attendances are literally 30-40x higher and revenues the same. But a great move by the smaller clubs, including Rovers, as they all have the same budgets in future, the clubs even all voted to reduce the % of clubs required to approve the changes, what's the opposite of chickens voting for Christmas? I can't understand why any Rovers fan is anti the budget as it's a perfect outcome for the club particularly whilst we're stuck playing at the Mem. Oh it 100% benefits us currently, no argument. We cannot compete financially with the revenues of Sunderland or Portsmouth (I assume). But if we ever get the stadium and in turn become one of those clubs creating much more revenue then it backfires slightly but it's a catch 22 really.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 5, 2020 12:27:35 GMT
This is a really good point and actually something I've never considered. I could fully understand the Sunderland boardroom being baffled about being held to the same financial constraints as the likes of Accrington when their attendances are literally 30-40x higher and revenues the same. But a great move by the smaller clubs, including Rovers, as they all have the same budgets in future, the clubs even all voted to reduce the % of clubs required to approve the changes, what's the opposite of chickens voting for Christmas? I can't understand why any Rovers fan is anti the budget as it's a perfect outcome for the club particularly whilst we're stuck playing at the Mem. We're not a smaller club and we don't have a lower budget. If we're a top half budget club then this will work against us. Besides that, my objections aren't based on how it serves our club, but how it serves our game.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Aug 5, 2020 12:29:50 GMT
Incidentally on the salary cap vote, I would vote in favour of this as I think it's important for the game. However, I would only vote in favour on the basis that measures are enforced to prevent a yo-yo effect from happening. There has to be a realistically competitive bridge between the Championship and L1, otherwise us poor sods supporting L1 clubs and below may as well give up on ever getting beyond that. They are saying 18 million for championship clubs and 2.5 million for league 1 clubs. I would vote no personally. It should always be a percentage of the club's turnover. It should just be enforced better.Why should Accrington and Sunderland have the same wages budget? Smaller clubs could still get in debt, if they spend the allowed amount, as they don't have that much coming in. Spot on. And the two clubs you’ve chosen are the examples that show how unrealistic it is. The solution to the financial problem in football is not easy but creating more rules is not the answer, clubs will just get around the problem somehow. There are existing rules in place already, the “fit and proper” person rule regarding owners, FFP and clubs seem to get around them. We don’t need new rules just someone to apply the rules we have. Who will police the salary cap? If it’s the EFL then that’s almost a guarantee it won’t work. The EFL, unfortunately, have become part of the problem not the solution and they have proved incapable of running a large football organisation. The way they oversee their existing rules, as shown by the present debacle with Wigan, Sheffield Wednesday, Derby and Charlton have shown they are totally inept. The EFL and how they deal with rules and subsequent punishments is an administrative version of VAR, everyone can see the rules have been broken but we have to wait months until the person at VAR decide on whether to uphold or ignore it. When that happens we see Wigan punished, Sheffield W get away with it although they broke the rules months before Wigan yet get their punishment pushed back to next season and Charlton punished unfairly. Dont create new rules that some will get around, just police our existing ones much better. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Aug 5, 2020 12:47:03 GMT
They are saying 18 million for championship clubs and 2.5 million for league 1 clubs. I would vote no personally. It should always be a percentage of the club's turnover. It should just be enforced better.Why should Accrington and Sunderland have the same wages budget? Smaller clubs could still get in debt, if they spend the allowed amount, as they don't have that much coming in. Spot on. And the two clubs you’ve chosen are the examples that show how unrealistic it is. The solution to the financial problem in football is not easy but creating more rules is not the answer, clubs will just get around the problem somehow. There are existing rules in place already, the “fit and proper” person rule regarding owners, FFP and clubs seem to get around them. We don’t need new rules just someone to apply the rules we have. Who will police the salary cap? If it’s the EFL then that’s almost a guarantee it won’t work. The EFL, unfortunately, have become part of the problem not the solution and they have proved incapable of running a large football organisation. The way they oversee their existing rules, as shown by the present debacle with Wigan, Sheffield Wednesday, Derby and Charlton have shown they are totally inept. The EFL and how they deal with rules and subsequent punishments is an administrative version of VAR, everyone can see the rules have been broken but we have to wait months until the person at VAR decide on whether to uphold or ignore it. When that happens we see Wigan punished, Sheffield W get away with it although they broke the rules months before Wigan yet get their punishment pushed back to next season and Charlton punished unfairly. Dont create new rules that some will get around, just police our existing ones much better. UTG! I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees the EFL in that way. Stinks of bias and corruption in almost every decision they make. The inconsistency is so bizarre that there doesn't appear to be any logic to what they decide on every time. The different ways they treated Bury and Bolton, and then Macclesfield, now Wigan and Sheffield Wednesday. It's a joke at best, and a scandal at worst.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Aug 5, 2020 12:48:22 GMT
It’s not just the % of turnover that clubs are supposed not to exceed. Club owners are allowed to pump in as much money as they like as long as it’s gifted and not a loan that gets repaid. Also 100% of player sales and 100% of any Cup revenue is allowed. I presume figures can be manipulated fairly easily so it appears any cap hasn’t been breached. This. It’s fine as far as I’m concerned for rich owners to put as much into their clubs as they like as long as it is a gift and not as a loan which burdens the club with debt. Owners can do what they like with their money but it should not be at the expense of the clubs future or it’s overall financial well-being. Salary Caps may well lead to clubs maintaining their status quo and stopping smaller clubs from challenging the elite. I bet the PL never have a salary cap, the Manchester clubs, the big London clubs would not allow it. It would hit their ability to compete in European competitions. In the EFL it would be interesting to see the impact on a Fleetwood or a Peterborough (to an extent) both of whom depend on wealthy owners and indeed us with WAQ. The detail in the transition rules from one league to the next would be the detail that makes or brakes how it works. I’d hate to have a system that more or less condemns a club to a certain level of football. At the moment it’s kind of like that but every club can, in theory, attract a Roman Abramovic or a Middle Eastern billionaire family or rich Americans or Russians etc. It doesn’t happen often but it can and when it does the rest of us hate it because it’s not us and we are jealous ( we are really whatever anyone’s says!). And when it happens it becomes a great story, Watford in the 70s/80s, Wimbledon in the 80s, Bournemouth in the 2010s. They become great stories. I’m not sure they would happen with a salary cap which limits what you spend. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by thegasman on Aug 5, 2020 12:50:25 GMT
Players who are below the age of 21 will be exempt from the restrictions, regardless of the division. Existing players’ wages will be regarded as the league average for the remainder of the contract length. The average weekly salary will be around £1,800 per player. (though I understood this to be £1300/wk, may be a typo, may be I was wrong.) There won’t be a maximum on how much a club can pay a player per week. All bonuses except for promotion will be included in the salary cap. Signing-on fees and relocation fees are also to be part of the limit. Clubs who are demoted from the second tier will be given a transition season to make changes. Agent fees will also be included in the proposed figures for salary caps. All this selected fromPompeys website, which has much more info, and makes interesting reading, Their CEO seems to think this will be in place for this season, so as tomorrow (if passed) it will be in place www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/football/portsmouth-fc/efl-salary-cap-explained-how-portsmouth-might-be-impacted-wage-limits-squad-numbers-and-transfer-fees-2913567
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Aug 5, 2020 12:52:46 GMT
It’s not just the % of turnover that clubs are supposed not to exceed. Club owners are allowed to pump in as much money as they like as long as it’s gifted and not a loan that gets repaid. Also 100% of player sales and 100% of any Cup revenue is allowed. I presume figures can be manipulated fairly easily so it appears any cap hasn’t been breached. So, buy a player, on the books he earns £5k a week, but as a side line he's also the owners gardener earning an exra £10k? You’re the bloke who owns Fleetwood aren’t you? 😉 UTG!
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Aug 5, 2020 12:53:17 GMT
So, buy a player, on the books he earns £5k a week, but as a side line he's also the owners gardener earning an exra £10k? You’re the bloke who owns Fleetwood aren’t you? 😉 UTG! Sshhhh.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 5, 2020 13:02:06 GMT
But a great move by the smaller clubs, including Rovers, as they all have the same budgets in future, the clubs even all voted to reduce the % of clubs required to approve the changes, what's the opposite of chickens voting for Christmas? I can't understand why any Rovers fan is anti the budget as it's a perfect outcome for the club particularly whilst we're stuck playing at the Mem. We're not a smaller club and we don't have a lower budget. If we're a top half budget club then this will work against us. Besides that, my objections aren't based on how it serves our club, but how it serves our game. Why would it work against us, from recent experience the top clubs this season are likely to be the 3 relegated sides (if they get their finances sorted out) Ipswich, Sunderland, Pompey, Fleetwood & P'boro all clubs with probably higher wage budgets. It's a bit of a freak season if the likes of Shrewsbury, Wycombe or Oxford get in amongst that group of teams in the top 6, a complete rarity for one to actually go on and get promoted, probably only Burton & Wycombe plus Yeovil have managed it in the past few years. Given this is a Rovers forum unless you're turning into Gasincider I'd have thought it's our interests that matter not football as a whole but the L1 club's owners voting for the cap clearly see it as a good move.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 5, 2020 13:13:12 GMT
We're not a smaller club and we don't have a lower budget. If we're a top half budget club then this will work against us. Besides that, my objections aren't based on how it serves our club, but how it serves our game. Why would it work against us, from recent experience the top clubs this season are likely to be the 3 relegated sides (if they get their finances sorted out) Ipswich, Sunderland, Pompey, Fleetwood & P'boro all clubs with probably higher wage budgets. It's a bit of a freak season if the likes of Shrewsbury, Wycombe or Oxford get in amongst that group of teams in the top 6, a complete rarity for one to actually go on and get promoted, probably only Burton & Wycombe plus Yeovil have managed it in the past few years. Given this is a Rovers forum unless you're turning into Gasincider I'd have thought it's our interests that matter not football as a whole but the L1 club's owners voting for the cap clearly see it as a good move. 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.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Aug 5, 2020 13:22:53 GMT
Players who are below the age of 21 will be exempt from the restrictions, regardless of the division. Existing players’ wages will be regarded as the league average for the remainder of the contract length. The average weekly salary will be around £1,800 per player. (though I understood this to be £1300/wk, may be a typo, may be I was wrong.) There won’t be a maximum on how much a club can pay a player per week. All bonuses except for promotion will be included in the salary cap. Signing-on fees and relocation fees are also to be part of the limit. Clubs who are demoted from the second tier will be given a transition season to make changes. Agent fees will also be included in the proposed figures for salary caps. All this selected fromPompeys website, which has much more info, and makes interesting reading, Their CEO seems to think this will be in place for this season, so as tomorrow (if passed) it will be in place www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/football/portsmouth-fc/efl-salary-cap-explained-how-portsmouth-might-be-impacted-wage-limits-squad-numbers-and-transfer-fees-2913567Think the age thing is a good and bad thing a well. If a club had 3 player's turning the age to be counted, they would have to release them, or 3 different player's 😂. If they already have the maximum squad limit.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,962
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Aug 5, 2020 15:07:23 GMT
Maybe home grown players should be exempt regardless of age.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 5, 2020 15:08:20 GMT
Why would it work against us, from recent experience the top clubs this season are likely to be the 3 relegated sides (if they get their finances sorted out) Ipswich, Sunderland, Pompey, Fleetwood & P'boro all clubs with probably higher wage budgets. It's a bit of a freak season if the likes of Shrewsbury, Wycombe or Oxford get in amongst that group of teams in the top 6, a complete rarity for one to actually go on and get promoted, probably only Burton & Wycombe plus Yeovil have managed it in the past few years. Given this is a Rovers forum unless you're turning into Gasincider I'd have thought it's our interests that matter not football as a whole but the L1 club's owners voting for the cap clearly see it as a good move. 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!!
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Aug 5, 2020 15:48:16 GMT
We're not a smaller club and we don't have a lower budget. If we're a top half budget club then this will work against us. Besides that, my objections aren't based on how it serves our club, but how it serves our game. Why would it work against us, from recent experience the top clubs this season are likely to be the 3 relegated sides (if they get their finances sorted out) Ipswich, Sunderland, Pompey, Fleetwood & P'boro all clubs with probably higher wage budgets. It's a bit of a freak season if the likes of Shrewsbury, Wycombe or Oxford get in amongst that group of teams in the top 6, a complete rarity for one to actually go on and get promoted, probably only Burton & Wycombe plus Yeovil have managed it in the past few years. Given this is a Rovers forum unless you're turning into Gasincider I'd have thought it's our interests that matter not football as a whole but the L1 club's owners voting for the cap clearly see it as a good move. Blimey, you accuse someone of wanting what's best for football in general, as effectively being anti-Rovers? Isn't that quite a selfish and self-serving attitude to have? What if our circumstances were to change such that this would no longer be in our interest, would you still vote for the same thing, or would you just chop and change your views on it as long as it benefited us, without a care for how it benefited the system as a whole?
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 19,007
|
Post by pirate on Aug 5, 2020 16:09:10 GMT
Does anybody think with clubs voting on the salary cap tomorrow we may see a new signing today or tomorrow morning as any signings made before would only count as £1300 per week towards the cap??? Seen on twitter (Yes I know) that we are inetrested in Luke Garbutt but only if a move to Sunderland doesn’t go through. Garbutt will go to either Sunderland or Ipswich.
|
|