Karl Robinson - Is he right or wrong?

The 2.5 million figure sounds like a powerplay by smaller teams to limit the spending of others and improve their chances of going up.

Hull will struggle to get even near that when they come down
 
KR got it right when he spoke about a Premiership 1 & 2.

£2.5 million cap on League 1, kiss football goodbye.
 
Can many teams afford more than that? Wouldn’t it be a good idea if they stayed more within their means?
How would any team with good backing ever get out of the league? What happens to the likes of Sunderland, Peterborough, Portsmouth, Ipswich with their already bigger budgets? What happens to the sides that get relegated from the Championship? Sunderland came down to League 1 with Premiership parachute payments still in place, what happens to them?
And, if promoted to the Championship, it would require an entire re-build of the team with players of a higher standard due to the wage differential.

Sorry, doesn't work. FFP should work but the EFL are totally ineffectual and the system has been abused from outset.
If a club has got the means and desire to progress and the owner has got the financial clout, why shouldn't they be able to spend what they feel is appropriate?
 
How would any team with good backing ever get out of the league? What happens to the likes of Sunderland, Peterborough, Portsmouth, Ipswich with their already bigger budgets? What happens to the sides that get relegated from the Championship? Sunderland came down to League 1 with Premiership parachute payments still in place, what happens to them?
And, if promoted to the Championship, it would require an entire re-build of the team with players of a higher standard due to the wage differential.

Sorry, doesn't work. FFP should work but the EFL are totally ineffectual and the system has been abused from outset.
If a club has got the means and desire to progress and the owner has got the financial clout, why shouldn't they be able to spend what they feel is appropriate?
Yes agree it's too much of a blunt instrument to work properly
 
Sorry, doesn't work. FFP should work but the EFL are totally ineffectual and the system has been abused from outset.
If a club has got the means and desire to progress and the owner has got the financial clout, why shouldn't they be able to spend what they feel is appropriate?

Way I see it, for FFP to really, genuinely work they have to massively increase the clarity and transparency of the system.

First, they have to be very clear and public about what revenues can be included by clubs - for me that should be match day income, TV money, commercial revenue, sponsorship and gifts from owners. Not loans. If an owner wants to put his (or her) money into their club to give it a boost, fine, but they should not be allowed to saddle the club up with debt in the hope that they can get to the Premiership one day and pay it off.

Then every club should have to publically disclose those revenues, and make any paper trails available for the EFL to audit.

You then have an agreed percentage of the previous year's revenues that any club is allowed to spend on wages in the next (maybe 60%). And then the clubs need to publicly release those wage figures as well to show openly that they are compliant.

Yes, players and chairmen alike probably won't like it, because that sort of transparency shows up to the fans very clearly who is, and who isn't value for money.
But it's done elsewhere. I've posted it before on here, but here's the wage bill for the hockey team I follow - https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/canucks
And here's one for the baseball team - https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHI/philadelphia-phillies-salaries-and-contracts.shtml

The NHL has a salary cap, and MLB does not, but the principle is the same. Openness and transparency, and then it becomes much harder to abuse the system.

If they can do that in North America, why can't they do it in Britain?


But if the clubs won't sign up to openness and transparency, and want to continue to operate FFP as a shady, opaque system that mostly ends up in the courts to resolve, then it isn't going to work. Then you have to go for a simple, hard salary cap as it's the only way to create something enforceable.
 
Way I see it, for FFP to really, genuinely work they have to massively increase the clarity and transparency of the system.

First, they have to be very clear and public about what revenues can be included by clubs - for me that should be match day income, TV money, commercial revenue, sponsorship and gifts from owners. Not loans. If an owner wants to put his (or her) money into their club to give it a boost, fine, but they should not be allowed to saddle the club up with debt in the hope that they can get to the Premiership one day and pay it off.

Then every club should have to publically disclose those revenues, and make any paper trails available for the EFL to audit.

You then have an agreed percentage of the previous year's revenues that any club is allowed to spend on wages in the next (maybe 60%). And then the clubs need to publicly release those wage figures as well to show openly that they are compliant.

Yes, players and chairmen alike probably won't like it, because that sort of transparency shows up to the fans very clearly who is, and who isn't value for money.
But it's done elsewhere. I've posted it before on here, but here's the wage bill for the hockey team I follow - https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/canucks
And here's one for the baseball team - https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHI/philadelphia-phillies-salaries-and-contracts.shtml

The NHL has a salary cap, and MLB does not, but the principle is the same. Openness and transparency, and then it becomes much harder to abuse the system.

If they can do that in North America, why can't they do it in Britain?


But if the clubs won't sign up to openness and transparency, and want to continue to operate FFP as a shady, opaque system that mostly ends up in the courts to resolve, then it isn't going to work. Then you have to go for a simple, hard salary cap as it's the only way to create something enforceable.

Only sponsorship from non-connected party‘s. Otherwise you end up with the Man City scenario.
 
Way I see it, for FFP to really, genuinely work they have to massively increase the clarity and transparency of the system.

First, they have to be very clear and public about what revenues can be included by clubs - for me that should be match day income, TV money, commercial revenue, sponsorship and gifts from owners. Not loans. If an owner wants to put his (or her) money into their club to give it a boost, fine, but they should not be allowed to saddle the club up with debt in the hope that they can get to the Premiership one day and pay it off.

Then every club should have to publically disclose those revenues, and make any paper trails available for the EFL to audit.

You then have an agreed percentage of the previous year's revenues that any club is allowed to spend on wages in the next (maybe 60%). And then the clubs need to publicly release those wage figures as well to show openly that they are compliant.

Yes, players and chairmen alike probably won't like it, because that sort of transparency shows up to the fans very clearly who is, and who isn't value for money.
But it's done elsewhere. I've posted it before on here, but here's the wage bill for the hockey team I follow - https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/canucks
And here's one for the baseball team - https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHI/philadelphia-phillies-salaries-and-contracts.shtml

The NHL has a salary cap, and MLB does not, but the principle is the same. Openness and transparency, and then it becomes much harder to abuse the system.

If they can do that in North America, why can't they do it in Britain?


But if the clubs won't sign up to openness and transparency, and want to continue to operate FFP as a shady, opaque system that mostly ends up in the courts to resolve, then it isn't going to work. Then you have to go for a simple, hard salary cap as it's the only way to create something enforceable.
On your point about gifts from owners (rather than loans), is that what happens in the NHL and MLB, too? Because while this sounds good in principle, I suspect the commercial reality is that many rich individuals simply wouldn't be interested in putting money into clubs at all if there was no guaranteed prospect of their getting their money back. The kinds of men and women who have made enough money to be in a position to purchase a football club are not the kinds of people who are going to be suddenly struck by a benevolent urge to throw millions at a third division football club!
 
On your point about gifts from owners (rather than loans), is that what happens in the NHL and MLB, too? Because while this sounds good in principle, I suspect the commercial reality is that many rich individuals simply wouldn't be interested in putting money into clubs at all if there was no guaranteed prospect of their getting their money back. The kinds of men and women who have made enough money to be in a position to purchase a football club are not the kinds of people who are going to be suddenly struck by a benevolent urge to throw millions at a third division football club!

I'll be honest - MLB teams aren't as transparent about their revenues as they are about their expenses, so it's not 100% certain. But by most financial analyses, it's expected that all 30 teams are profitable. In the NHL, it was about 80% last year. So gifts/loans from the owners aren't really necessary.

But that's a little beside my point. The purpose of FFP and/or a salary cap is to stop clubs being put at risk because they spend outside of their means.
For all that Steve Dale is a mean and odd man, Bury are gone now not primarily because of him, but because their previous owners massively increased their wage bills beyond what they could sustain, and leveraged them up to the max, in the hope that increased future revenues could pay for it.
Almost all the clubs that have gotten themselves into financial turmoil lately - Bolton, Portsmouth, Notts County etc. - did something similar.

Fans like the idea of a white knight coming in to buy the club, because it allows us to dream of a future of unbridled possibilities without pesky financial realities.
Fine - we can still have that.
But if an owner wants to come in and turn a football club into their new plaything, let them take on the full financial risk of doing so, don't let them pass the bulk of that risk on to the club. And if they won't do it, because the risks are too high, then that would be pretty telling.
 
Do you support Oxford or Karl Robinson?

If you support Oxford, you want the best for them. You want them to win, to play good football, to develop exciting young players, to be run in a way that is sustainable and to make a real difference in the community.

If Karl Robinson offers all of that, then why wouldn't he get the full support of us fans?
 
If you support Oxford, you want the best for them. You want them to win, to play good football, to develop exciting young players, to be run in a way that is sustainable and to make a real difference in the community.

If Karl Robinson offers all of that, then why wouldn't he get the full support of us fans?

You know exactly what I mean.

Your better than this.
 
Back
Top Bottom