aca00js
Frank Worthington Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 1,971
|
Post by aca00js on Aug 7, 2020 21:16:46 GMT 1
The suggestion is £20m to start with in the Championship and looking to move that downwards. I couldn't see how it works without the premier league doing one as well but if you go up and come down those contracts from the premier league years will only contribute around £20K even if they are higher wages.
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Aug 7, 2020 21:18:10 GMT 1
I read this to mean that if the new Divisional Average for League 1 was say £2,500 per week and a Hull player had 3 years left on his contract of £6,000 a week his salary would immediately be reduced to £2,500 for the rest of his contract. That’s not the case. They have a legal obligation to pay him £6,000 per week. The football league can’t change that. I completely agree with what you are saying but the EFL specifically says those on long term contracts (already signed and working) will be subject to this Division Average. Looks like the lawyers as well as the Creative Accountants are going to do well out of all this.
|
|
aca00js
Frank Worthington Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 1,971
|
Post by aca00js on Aug 7, 2020 21:24:24 GMT 1
No surprise the PFA are going to challenge it www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53696424I could understand this objection more if it was in the premier league as the income the clubs make because of the players then the wages are understandable but in the football league they aren't realistic compared to the income the clubs get in. But then the PFA are always going to act in the players interest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2020 21:36:18 GMT 1
I read this to mean that if the new Divisional Average for League 1 was say £2,500 per week and a Hull player had 3 years left on his contract of £6,000 a week his salary would immediately be reduced to £2,500 for the rest of his contract. That’s not the case. They have a legal obligation to pay him £6,000 per week. The football league can’t change that. They will still pay him £6000 but the cap wouldn't show him as having that as his salary. The cap would show him having the divisional average until his contract expired.
|
|
|
Post by garyroberts'leftfoot on Aug 7, 2020 21:40:03 GMT 1
That’s not the case. They have a legal obligation to pay him £6,000 per week. The football league can’t change that. I completely agree with what you are saying but the EFL specifically says those on long term contracts (already signed and working) will be subject to this Division Average. Looks like the lawyers as well as the Creative Accountants are going to do well out of all this. Fair enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2020 21:58:38 GMT 1
I read this to mean that if the new Divisional Average for League 1 was say £2,500 per week and a Hull player had 3 years left on his contract of £6,000 a week his salary would immediately be reduced to £2,500 for the rest of his contract. And I’d read that to say a Hull player who might have a £5m price tag on his head to the benefit of Hull could tell them to sod off, be released from his contract for free and go and sign for someone else who can pay what they agree to pay him. It also makes a complete and total mockery of the “football debts must be paid in full” situation when clubs go into admin, if we’re now saying that football contracts aren’t really worth the paper they’re written on...it feels like a massive legal minefield to me, who will be the new Bosman and end up in a situation in 4 years time where when a club is relegated, all their players contracts are automatically cancelled to avoid a restraint of earnings case and they become free agents?! It can’t be like that, must be as RochdaleTerrier posted above.
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Aug 7, 2020 22:47:58 GMT 1
New rules on salary caps agreed for Leagues one & two to be implemented at the start of the new season. Not sure how this works if clubs have already committed to contracts that could potentially mean they break the cap. Championship clubs still discussing it apparently. Is that for the squad or per player? That's how mad it all is. The squad. It doesn't include U21's though. A lot of players are going to have a rude awakening.
|
|
|
Post by otium (EPBS) on Aug 7, 2020 22:50:25 GMT 1
Is that for the squad or per player? That's how mad it all is. The squad. It doesn't include U21's though. A lot of players are going to have a rude awakening. Wow. Truly. Think our last year in the Prem we spaffed £64 million! Frightening when you think how poor most of them were. 1 year and you can retire. I was only talking to an old Town legend this week and he was saying how young lads have their heads turned at the first sniff of a big contract at 19. Millionaire whatever happens.
|
|
Melc
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,829
|
Post by Melc on Aug 7, 2020 23:09:36 GMT 1
The squad. It doesn't include U21's though. A lot of players are going to have a rude awakening. Wow. Truly. Think our last year in the Prem we spaffed £64 million! Frightening when you think how poor most of them were. 1 year and you can retire. I was only talking to an old Town legend this week and he was saying how young lads have their heads turned at the first sniff of a big contract at 19. Millionaire whatever happens. The fact over 800 players are looking for clubs should be a wake up call!
|
|
|
Post by otium (EPBS) on Aug 7, 2020 23:10:17 GMT 1
Wow. Truly. Think our last year in the Prem we spaffed £64 million! Frightening when you think how poor most of them were. 1 year and you can retire. I was only talking to an old Town legend this week and he was saying how young lads have their heads turned at the first sniff of a big contract at 19. Millionaire whatever happens. The fact over 800 players are looking for clubs should be a wake up call! GOOD!
|
|
|
Post by htfctx on Aug 9, 2020 19:11:02 GMT 1
Performance related bonuses? Would that be away of getting around the cap? Appearance bonus, clean sheet bonus, goal bonus, win bonus, hair cut like a fanny bonus etc Payment to players for community work, media work and personal appearances ?
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Aug 9, 2020 19:22:45 GMT 1
Not sure I agree that a club in the National League (Bromley for example) will be allowed to spend more on wages than a League 1 club (Doncaster Rovers for example) but the consensus on here appears to support the new proposals so I guess it is a step in the right direction. What I think it will do is make it a lot harder for the bigger clubs in League 1 to get promoted, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Sunderland etc which can only be good for us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2020 21:17:51 GMT 1
Not sure I agree that a club in the National League (Bromley for example) will be allowed to spend more on wages than a League 1 club (Doncaster Rovers for example) but the consensus on here appears to support the new proposals so I guess it is a step in the right direction. What I think it will do is make it a lot harder for the bigger clubs in League 1 to get promoted, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Sunderland etc which can only be good for us. Not sure its a consensus. My feeling is the FA or EFL or EPL shouldn't really get involved with salary caps or FFP or anything of the sort, they aren't operating a franchise, they run a league ladder system for businesses to compete in. Football clubs should be allowed to spend and lose whatever they want, just like any other business, and rack up whatever level of debt they think is reasonable to support that dream. And football clubs should be allowed to go out of business when they fail.
|
|
|
Post by wildbillthetownfan on Aug 9, 2020 21:49:23 GMT 1
Makes you wonder how big the wage bill was at Leeds, their chairman was pumping in 1 million a month to go towards player's wages and that is on top of more or less a full house every week at the price's they charge.
|
|
|
Post by SaudiTerrier on Aug 9, 2020 22:06:23 GMT 1
Not sure I agree that a club in the National League (Bromley for example) will be allowed to spend more on wages than a League 1 club (Doncaster Rovers for example) but the consensus on here appears to support the new proposals so I guess it is a step in the right direction. What I think it will do is make it a lot harder for the bigger clubs in League 1 to get promoted, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Sunderland etc which can only be good for us. Not sure its a consensus. My feeling is the FA or EFL or EPL shouldn't really get involved with salary caps or FFP or anything of the sort, they aren't operating a franchise, they run a league ladder system for businesses to compete in. Football clubs should be allowed to spend and lose whatever they want, just like any other business, and rack up whatever level of debt they think is reasonable to support that dream. And football clubs should be allowed to go out of business when they fail. Correct. This is a stupid idea. Leagues that enforce salary caps are only playing themelves. They weaken the league and reduce investment in it and it will overall have a negative impact on the quality of each division. Better players would only go and seek higher wages elsewhere and widen the gaps between divisions making it harder to get promoted or stay there when you do. The only way this would work is if all clubs/leagues in the UK did it. But then all that you'd have is top talent no longer wanting to play in the UK at all and they'd go to other countries that pay more..
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Aug 10, 2020 8:30:12 GMT 1
According to the PFA it is unlawful to change a players contract that has already been signed and up and running (and rightly so) so the whole thing is unlikely to work anyway. What the EFL need to do is focus on the shambolic situation that they already preside over first. One example of this is Charlton were the takeover in January (6 months ago) has not yet been sanctioned by the EFL (in fact it has been rejected) so this is going to drag on and on. Harsh as it is if the takeover has been rejected surely Charlton should have their golden ball/ticket/share (or whatever it is called) withdrawn and not be allowed to take part in League 1 next year.
|
|
iangreaves
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 4,011
|
Post by iangreaves on Aug 10, 2020 8:40:16 GMT 1
Not sure I agree that a club in the National League (Bromley for example) will be allowed to spend more on wages than a League 1 club (Doncaster Rovers for example) but the consensus on here appears to support the new proposals so I guess it is a step in the right direction. What I think it will do is make it a lot harder for the bigger clubs in League 1 to get promoted, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Sunderland etc which can only be good for us. Not sure its a consensus. My feeling is the FA or EFL or EPL shouldn't really get involved with salary caps or FFP or anything of the sort, they aren't operating a franchise, they run a league ladder system for businesses to compete in. Football clubs should be allowed to spend and lose whatever they want, just like any other business, and rack up whatever level of debt they think is reasonable to support that dream. And football clubs should be allowed to go out of business when they fail. They are not like other businesses. When football clubs go into administration there is a rule that football debts must be paid before all others. That doesn't happen in other businesses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 10:38:13 GMT 1
Not sure its a consensus. My feeling is the FA or EFL or EPL shouldn't really get involved with salary caps or FFP or anything of the sort, they aren't operating a franchise, they run a league ladder system for businesses to compete in. Football clubs should be allowed to spend and lose whatever they want, just like any other business, and rack up whatever level of debt they think is reasonable to support that dream. And football clubs should be allowed to go out of business when they fail. They are not like other businesses. When football clubs go into administration there is a rule that football debts must be paid before all others. That doesn't happen in other businesses. That rule is for football clubs that continue operating in the footballing cartel world AFTER going into administration and is a footballing self-preservation order that enables clubs to more easily continue their standing when they in reality are business that that should be allowed to fail and cease to exist. Ideally that rule should be removed. But irrespective, if clubs rack up debt that they can't afford to repay under the terms agreed (and players wages and other 'footballing debt' is likely to form that debt), then they crash and burn, its not difficult. But before that, why shouldn't they be allowed to rack up massive debt to owners, banks, airlines and countries etc if those institutions are prepared to pump it in? The whole FFP situation is a bit like an agreement that a wedged up family should be barred from taking a loan for a Bugatti *because* Johnny down the road can only afford his battered second hand Ford Ka and "its not fair...the rich get richer waaa waaa".
|
|
|
Post by Mecha Corte on Aug 10, 2020 13:25:20 GMT 1
According to the PFA it is unlawful to change a players contract that has already been signed and up and running (and rightly so) so the whole thing is unlikely to work anyway. What the EFL need to do is focus on the shambolic situation that they already preside over first. One example of this is Charlton were the takeover in January (6 months ago) has not yet been sanctioned by the EFL (in fact it has been rejected) so this is going to drag on and on. Harsh as it is if the takeover has been rejected surely Charlton should have their golden ball/ticket/share (or whatever it is called) withdrawn and not be allowed to take part in League 1 next year. Former Palace owner, Simon Jordan, went on a raving, "How Dare They" threaten legal action rant on Talk Sport against Gordon Taylor and the PFA for immediately saying NO to this, very hard to disagree with anything he said, which basically meant if these clubs go out of business, which given the covid restrictions they face, indefinitely is a real possibility, how does the PFA think it's members will get paid then ? He also queried why the players union should claim £27M a year from the broadcasting deal.
|
|
|
Post by Up the Duff. on Aug 10, 2020 14:37:40 GMT 1
The best players in leagues 1 and 2 will in alot of cases now be happy as squad members in the championship as this will no doubt pay them substantially more than the top end of 2 to 3k in the lower leagues.
|
|
crux
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,891
|
Post by crux on Aug 10, 2020 15:22:17 GMT 1
According to the PFA it is unlawful to change a players contract that has already been signed and up and running (and rightly so) so the whole thing is unlikely to work anyway. What the EFL need to do is focus on the shambolic situation that they already preside over first. One example of this is Charlton were the takeover in January (6 months ago) has not yet been sanctioned by the EFL (in fact it has been rejected) so this is going to drag on and on. Harsh as it is if the takeover has been rejected surely Charlton should have their golden ball/ticket/share (or whatever it is called) withdrawn and not be allowed to take part in League 1 next year. Former Palace owner, Simon Jordan, went on a raving, "How Dare They" threaten legal action rant on Talk Sport against Gordon Taylor and the PFA for immediately saying NO to this, very hard to disagree with anything he said, which basically meant if these clubs go out of business, which given the covid restrictions they face, indefinitely is a real possibility, how does the PFA think it's members will get paid then ? He also queried why the players union should claim £27M a year from the broadcasting deal.I agree with that, especially as the top players now get approaching £27M pa salary! The players should pay a percentage of their salary as union subs once they get beyond a certain level.
|
|
|
Post by hypotenuse on Aug 10, 2020 15:55:37 GMT 1
Not sure its a consensus. My feeling is the FA or EFL or EPL shouldn't really get involved with salary caps or FFP or anything of the sort, they aren't operating a franchise, they run a league ladder system for businesses to compete in. Football clubs should be allowed to spend and lose whatever they want, just like any other business, and rack up whatever level of debt they think is reasonable to support that dream. And football clubs should be allowed to go out of business when they fail. Correct. This is a stupid idea. Leagues that enforce salary caps are only playing themelves. They weaken the league and reduce investment in it and it will overall have a negative impact on the quality of each division. Better players would only go and seek higher wages elsewhere and widen the gaps between divisions making it harder to get promoted or stay there when you do. The only way this would work is if all clubs/leagues in the UK did it. But then all that you'd have is top talent no longer wanting to play in the UK at all and they'd go to other countries that pay more.. Classic right wing propaganda of the ‘brain drain’ variety.
|
|
|
Post by brighousebandbred on Aug 10, 2020 19:29:01 GMT 1
Correct. This is a stupid idea. Leagues that enforce salary caps are only playing themelves. They weaken the league and reduce investment in it and it will overall have a negative impact on the quality of each division. Better players would only go and seek higher wages elsewhere and widen the gaps between divisions making it harder to get promoted or stay there when you do. The only way this would work is if all clubs/leagues in the UK did it. But then all that you'd have is top talent no longer wanting to play in the UK at all and they'd go to other countries that pay more.. Classic right wing propaganda of the ‘brain drain’ variety. Football is full of mercenaries the average fan can not relate to the footballer that plays for his/her team couldn’t give two shits if a lot of them fuck off abroad maybe football would go back to being about the fans and community, happy for this to happen the quicker the better as football is dying bar for the cash cows at the top.
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Aug 10, 2020 20:36:44 GMT 1
From all the stuff that is going on (Wednesday, Derby, Wigan, Charlton etc) surely a"Salary Cap" is needed here more than Leagues 1 and 2.
|
|
|
Post by hypotenuse on Aug 10, 2020 21:06:11 GMT 1
Former Palace owner, Simon Jordan, went on a raving, "How Dare They" threaten legal action rant on Talk Sport against Gordon Taylor and the PFA for immediately saying NO to this, very hard to disagree with anything he said, which basically meant if these clubs go out of business, which given the covid restrictions they face, indefinitely is a real possibility, how does the PFA think it's members will get paid then ? He also queried why the players union should claim £27M a year from the broadcasting deal.I agree with that, especially as the top players now get approaching £27M pa salary! The players should pay a percentage of their salary as union subs once they get beyond a certain level. They should pay a proportion of their salary as union subs. Full stop. If they want to be in the union. I do in my job. It works out as 1% of my take home pay.
|
|
|
Post by Mecha Corte on Aug 11, 2020 7:48:15 GMT 1
I agree with that, especially as the top players now get approaching £27M pa salary! The players should pay a percentage of their salary as union subs once they get beyond a certain level. They should pay a proportion of their salary as union subs. Full stop. If they want to be in the union. I do in my job. It works out as 1% of my take home pay. I can see both points to be honest, yours and crux, but it doesn't sit right with me that top end PL players on £250/£300K a week pay the same union subs as a reserve keeper at Southend on £250 / £300 a week. Even if you agree that that is how it should be you've then got a seperate argument that why is Gordon Taylor, head of the Union, the highest paid union boss in the world and a further one that why the union is allowed to dip its finger in the broadcasting rights pie to the tune of £0.5M a week in addition to its subs? If they need extra funding why not reduce their wage bill, starting with Gordon Taylor's PL player like salary and increase the subscription that members pay, either across the board or in line with players earnings.
|
|
|
Post by CaptainHart on Aug 11, 2020 13:42:12 GMT 1
My feeling is the FA or EFL or EPL shouldn't really get involved with salary caps or FFP or anything of the sort, they aren't operating a franchise, they run a league ladder system for businesses to compete in. They are operating a franchise. Look what happened to MK Dons/Wimbledon and why they can demand that football debts are cleared before a club can take over the "share".
|
|
|
Post by dm on Aug 11, 2020 14:14:02 GMT 1
Salary caps would have been a good idea 30 years ago.
They're a good idea now but I'm not sure how they can be implemented now.
|
|
|
Post by hypotenuse on Aug 11, 2020 16:36:49 GMT 1
They should pay a proportion of their salary as union subs. Full stop. If they want to be in the union. I do in my job. It works out as 1% of my take home pay. I can see both points to be honest, yours and crux, but it doesn't sit right with me that top end PL players on £250/£300K a week pay the same union subs as a reserve keeper at Southend on £250 / £300 a week. Even if you agree that that is how it should be you've then got a seperate argument that why is Gordon Taylor, head of the Union, the highest paid union boss in the world and a further one that why the union is allowed to dip its finger in the broadcasting rights pie to the tune of £0.5M a week in addition to its subs? If they need extra funding why not reduce their wage bill, starting with Gordon Taylor's PL player like salary and increase the subscription that members pay, either across the board or in line with players earnings. I agree - I meant to say that I pay more than less well paid colleagues.
|
|