Transfer News Transfer window 2020/21

[LeftSideBoy]

View attachment 4222

Annnnnd they blocked me ?

 

[LeftSideBoy]

Yes we aim to recoup, but someone has to pay the bills before the fees come in. According to our 2019 accounts, we owed more than £10m to Group companies.

What if we spend money on two or three young players but none of them develop into the next Rob Dickie or Gavin Whyte to sell on?

Thats a fair point. I think that boils down to the risk/reward factor of our current model. To this point, it has seen healthy profits from players we have toted as being developmental signings. I think Tiger knows that a football club is a lost leader in many respects but, having on field assets like we had/have is only going to benefit the club, financially.

 

[RgYellows]

Thats a fair point. I think that boils down to the risk/reward factor of our current model. To this point, it has seen healthy profits from players we have toted as being developmental signings. I think Tiger knows that a football club is a lost leader in many respects but, having on field assets like we had/have is only going to benefit the club, financially.

If the reward is Championship relegation battles and the risk is being Bury, I'd sooner we moved away from that gamble.

To this point, we have racked up £10m in debt that we owe to someone else. And that includes, as you say, a frankly fantastic record on player trading.

 

[RgYellows]

p.s. what does everything think of Spotify?

 

[m]

p.s. what does everything think of Spotify?

Who does he play for again?

 

[Thomas/Brock/Jones]

p.s. what does everything think of Spotify?

Not heard of him tbh , a centre back or winger????

 

[yellowbow]

Times running out for the klaxon today..

 

[curransleftboot]

Patience is a virtue.

 

[Marked Ox]

They can be made, once you have clocked what someone is doing and why, paid the consultants to work out how to stop it, had a league vote and got the majority to stop it, and paid the lawyers to argue about it in court. And hey, you have added another few paragraphs to your complex set of rules.

By which time the big club with the billionaire owner in question has already smashed the FFP limit, risen up the league and gained more influence, maybe got to the top flight and out of the EFL rules altogether.

And when you've done it, the next loophole emerges.

You cannot possibly state everything that can and can't be included in income, unless you are to list every single object in the world that exists or may exist. Anything you miss, becomes an opportunity to break a rule.

No you are unlikely to get it first time but as many of the loopholes have been exploited then they will already know the vast majority. Are you expecting a perfect system for ever more? Odds on, loopholes will be found with the suggested cap. And with the system I suggested, the independent body would adjust the rules quickly anyway.

Other countries manage it and relegate clubs for breaking financial rules so there is no reason why we can't. Rather than the 12 point slap on the wrist.

 

[Itsthehopethatkillsyou]

@ECYellow - give us some transfer gossip fodder!

 

[RgYellows]

No you are unlikely to get it first time but as many of the loopholes have been exploited then they will already know the vast majority. Are you expecting a perfect system for ever more? Odds on, loopholes will be found with the suggested cap. And with the system I suggested, the independent body would adjust the rules quickly anyway.

Other countries manage it and relegate clubs for breaking financial rules so there is no reason why we can't. Rather than the 12 point slap on the wrist.

I wasn't saying that I expected it to be perfect for ever more or right first time, because I think that's an absolute non starter and not worth discussion. FFP has already started and it hasn't been perfect or right first time.

What I said was that I do not think they'll be able to plug holes as fast as they appear.

You say they "already know the vast majority of loopholes". This is absolutely baseless. They don't know what loopholes they don't know, or they would be closing them. Opportunities to "create" new income are limited only by the imagination of the person creating them.

Your proposal to create a system that allows loopholes to be closed instantly is both unrealistic and vague enough to not mean anything. It is like Karl Robinson saying the plan for promotion is to score plenty of goals but not concede too many.

 

[Marked Ox]

I wasn't saying that I expected it to be perfect for ever more or right first time, because I think that's an absolute non starter and not worth discussion. FFP has already started and it hasn't been perfect or right first time.

What I said was that I do not think they'll be able to plug holes as fast as they appear.

You say they "already know the vast majority of loopholes". This is absolutely baseless. They don't know what loopholes they don't know, or they would be closing them. Opportunities to "create" new income are limited only by the imagination of the person creating them.

Your proposal to create a system that allows loopholes to be closed instantly is both unrealistic and vague enough to not mean anything. It is like Karl Robinson saying the plan for promotion is to score plenty of goals but not concede too many.

By prescribing what is and isn't allowed you set the framework and the rules can be easily changed within this. Easily possible as it is done elsewhere from my brief reading many moons ago.

Yes FFP has failed so far, so you adjust and amend to get it working. Rather than the rushed, bodge effort currently being proposed, throwing the baby out with bath water.

 

[frenchconnection]

We signed anyone else yet? Lok

 

[greatunclekip]

We signed anyone else yet? Lok

Nope. Pretty standard.

 

[ttg17]

I wasn't saying that I expected it to be perfect for ever more or right first time, because I think that's an absolute non starter and not worth discussion. FFP has already started and it hasn't been perfect or right first time.

What I said was that I do not think they'll be able to plug holes as fast as they appear.

You say they "already know the vast majority of loopholes". This is absolutely baseless. They don't know what loopholes they don't know, or they would be closing them. Opportunities to "create" new income are limited only by the imagination of the person creating them.

Your proposal to create a system that allows loopholes to be closed instantly is both unrealistic and vague enough to not mean anything. It is like Karl Robinson saying the plan for promotion is to score plenty of goals but not concede too many.

The thing is, this argument about loopholes could be made whatever the regulations in place ultimately end up being. Take introducing a wage cap. If a richer club buys houses for all its players that the players can live in free of charge, thus saving them a lot of money on rent, does that count as contribution towards a 'wage cap'? If a club's policy is that all players have a very low base salary but massive performance-related bonuses, how are those counted for the purpose of an 'average wage'? What about a massive signing-on fee?

I think basically whatever you do is going to be hard to enforce and will have issues. So you take the policy right back to its roots: what is the purpose of the rule that is being implemented? If it is to 'prevent clubs spending outside their means', which I think we would all agree is the general idea, a blunt salary cap does not do this - for one thing, the salary cap may be too high for some clubs, which continue to overspend. A club's 'means' are dependent on a huge number of factors, and are not uniform, so to introduce a regulation that works on the idea that they are is foolhardy. A 'percentage of income' model, while imperfect, take this into account.

Also, I don't think the analogy with the NFL really works. Entire states can be literally obsessed with their football team. I literally couldn't name anything I associate with Wisconsin beyond cheese and the Packers - their football team is a HUGE part of the state's DNA. That market is comfortably bigger than, say, a New York, where there are multiple different teams from multiple different sports competing for punters' dollars.

 

[RgYellows]

By prescribing what is and isn't allowed you set the framework and the rules can be easily changed within this. Easily possible as it is done elsewhere from my brief reading many moons ago.

Yes FFP has failed so far, so you adjust and amend to get it working. Rather than the rushed, bodge effort currently being proposed, throwing the baby out with bath water.

Okay, lets use an example. You said we write a list of what is included as income, and what isn't included as income. I'm going to give myself a couple of minutes, and confine myself solely to the sales of snacks, and give you a few items they'd need to consider:

Will sales of crisps be allowed in FFP? Can a rich chairman pay £1m for a bag of crisps?
What about purchases of crisps to sell? Can a chairman buy enough crisps to last a year, and sell them to the club for £1?
Maybe we can cover all snacks. But what is a snack? Is fruit a snack? What if we call a bag of crisps and tea a meal, is that a snack or is a meal different from a snack?
Surely drinks aren't snacks?
What about if we sell the snack stand itself, is that capital or revenue?
What about if we sell the beer pumps, is that capital or revenue?
Surely the plastic cups must be revenue, or are they capital?
Okay lets just say all the stuff sold under the East Stand is fine. What about dinners in the Boxes?
What about the Boxes themselves, can we include income the Chairman pays for a box?
What about if the Box has a season ticket?
What about if we sell a ten year season ticket for the Box? Is that capital or revenue?
What about a 100 year?
What about if we sell the rights to sell snacks under the East Stand to a company owned by the Chairman? Is that capital or revenue?
What if the Chairman buys a licence to share in the profits of the snack stands? Does it matter if it's one year or ten years? When's the cut off? Can a chairman pay £10m to share in the profits of one of our snack stands for a year?

We can go on forever.

 

[Witneyoldfella]

Still nobody signed today ???

 

[battman]

Nope. Pretty standard.

At this rate there are going to be more days this year that we've not signed a player than days where we have.

 

[Marked Ox]

Okay, lets use an example. You said we write a list of what is included as income, and what isn't included as income. I'm going to give myself a couple of minutes, and confine myself solely to the sales of snacks, and give you a few items they'd need to consider:

Will sales of crisps be allowed in FFP? Can a rich chairman pay £1m for a bag of crisps?
What about purchases of crisps to sell? Can a chairman buy enough crisps to last a year, and sell them to the club for £1?
Maybe we can cover all snacks. But what is a snack? Is fruit a snack? What if we call a bag of crisps and tea a meal, is that a snack or is a meal different from a snack?
Surely drinks aren't snacks?
What about if we sell the snack stand itself, is that capital or revenue?
What about if we sell the beer pumps, is that capital or revenue?
Surely the plastic cups must be revenue, or are they capital?
Okay lets just say all the stuff sold under the East Stand is fine. What about dinners in the Boxes?
What about the Boxes themselves, can we include income the Chairman pays for a box?
What about if the Box has a season ticket?
What about if we sell a ten year season ticket for the Box? Is that capital or revenue?
What about a 100 year?
What about if we sell the rights to sell snacks under the East Stand to a company owned by the Chairman? Is that capital or revenue?
What if the Chairman buys a licence to share in the profits of the snack stands? Does it matter if it's one year or ten years? When's the cut off? Can a chairman pay £10m to share in the profits of one of our snack stands for a year?

We can go on forever.

That sort of things applies to any system as described above about loopholes.

 

[RgYellows]

The thing is, this argument about loopholes could be made whatever the regulations in place ultimately end up being. Take introducing a wage cap. If a richer club buys houses for all its players that the players can live in free of charge, thus saving them a lot of money on rent, does that count as contribution towards a 'wage cap'? If a club's policy is that all players have a very low base salary but massive performance-related bonuses, how are those counted for the purpose of an 'average wage'? What about a massive signing-on fee?

I think basically whatever you do is going to be hard to enforce and will have issues. So you take the policy right back to its roots: what is the purpose of the rule that is being implemented? If it is to 'prevent clubs spending outside their means', which I think we would all agree is the general idea, a blunt salary cap does not do this - for one thing, the salary cap may be too high for some clubs, which continue to overspend. A club's 'means' are dependent on a huge number of factors, and are not uniform, so to introduce a regulation that works on the idea that they are is foolhardy. A 'percentage of income' model, while imperfect, take this into account.

Also, I don't think the analogy with the NFL really works. Entire states can be literally obsessed with their football team. I literally couldn't name anything I associate with Wisconsin beyond cheese and the Packers - their football team is a HUGE part of the state's DNA. That market is comfortably bigger than, say, a New York, where there are multiple different teams from multiple different sports competing for punters' dollars.

I absolutely agree that a cap is still open to loopholes, and those questions all need answering.

The fewer, more simply stated rules there are, the less opportunity there is for a bad rule to be exploited, or for differences in interpretation.

To go to specifics on the points you raise: clubs will already have to assign a monetary value to the benefits they provide to players, for tax purposes. I think that's a reasonable starting point. I think other sports have successfully implemented salary caps and will provide a useful steer on how to value a complex contract.

I agree with your second paragraph pretty much entirely. I also accept that the case for it can come with a heady amount of sporting idealism. It is a blunt weapon that isn't entirely aligned at least to the aim you state. But a blunt stick is sometimes more useful than a paper rocket launcher.

On the Green Bay vs New York point, I absolutely agree with the perception of Green Bay vs New York. And this is a great example of how a neat idea, expressed simply, can be completely and utterly wrong when it's not explored properly. According to Forbes, the NYG made $262m of stadium revenue in 2018, the Green Bay Packers $172m. The Dallas Cowboys $621m. All subject to the same salary cap.

Full disclosure - there's also revenue sharing in the NFL, which evens things up - Cowboys $950m, Giants $519m, Green Bay $456m are the overall revenue figures per Forbes but I think the first numbers I posted are a better indicator of how certain teams could pull away and yet remain part of a salary cap system that works.

I'd also add that if I had chosen the teams poorly - and I think the above figures show I didn't - then that wouldn't change the point. It'd be absurd to suggest that all 32 teams have the same revenue potential, and yet they've managed to make a common spending limit work.