Salary cap confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because some clubs would like to see others spend within their means and not risk the wellbeing of clubs in a gamble to get promoted.
 
Because some clubs would like to see others spend within their means and not risk the wellbeing of clubs in a gamble to get promoted.
Im not convinced that Shrewsbury have sleepless nights worrying about the wellbeing of, say, Portsmouth. I suspect its more that they see more of a chance of success if Portsmouth are only allowed to spend as much as themselves.

I could be wrong though. Fingers crossed there is still good in the world ?
 
All a bit of a myth all this stuff

Let's say everyone pays the same wage and as a player your choice is Pompey,Sunderland, Bristol Rovers,Oxford

Sunderland or Pompey will still get the player as they are Bigger clubs
 
All a bit of a myth all this stuff

Let's say everyone pays the same wage and as a player your choice is Pompey,Sunderland, Bristol Rovers,Oxford

Sunderland or Pompey will still get the player as they are Bigger clubs
Not necessarily. Some will depend on how often you are going to be playing (would you rather be first choice or an occasional sub?), how much housing costs in the area, your family situation, how happy you are and how much more you think you can develop at your current club, the reputation of the manager and development staff at a new club, recommendations from other players etc...
 
All a bit of a myth all this stuff

Let's say everyone pays the same wage and as a player your choice is Pompey,Sunderland, Bristol Rovers,Oxford

Sunderland or Pompey will still get the player as they are Bigger clubs


The north east is notoriously a difficult place to attract players. Sunderland sounds great and they are unquestionably a big fish in a small pond but as a player I'd be wary of signing for a manager who in all likelihood probably wont be there at christmas if they are anywhere other than top 4. Pompey and Sunderland are extremities location wise whereas we are handy for London and the midlands and although the north west isn't commutable on a daily basis it isn't a million miles away to get back to.

This season just gone has shown, under good management and recruitment, how an Oxford or Wycombe can outdo the Sunderlands, Ipswichs and Portsmouths and I think oxford in particular are probably the best club in the division to play for if you're an aspiring player. Who else can continue to put players in the shop window like us ? And who else can continually find replacemnets just as good, if not better ?
 
Not necessarily. Some will depend on how often you are going to be playing (would you rather be first choice or an occasional sub?), how much housing costs in the area, your family situation, how happy you are and how much more you think you can develop at your current club, the reputation of the manager and development staff at a new club, recommendations from other players etc...
Yes, housing costs will be a major consideration. We could miss out on players due to that one aspect alone. Unless of course there is a way around it. Maybe the club can buy up some homes and rent them out to new players.
 
Yes, housing costs will be a major consideration. We could miss out on players due to that one aspect alone. Unless of course there is a way around it. Maybe the club can buy up some homes and rent them out to new players.
They're paid enough to rent a new build in Bicester! Most will buy somewhere else as their long term home.
 
Because some clubs would like to see others spend within their means and not risk the wellbeing of clubs in a gamble to get promoted.
Clubs spending within their means would require a percentage of revenue / turnover being capped, rather than a flat number that’s applicable to both Sunderland and Accrington, despite one of them regularly getting crowds more than ten times the size of the other. Otherwise you’re just spending within other people’s means. By the EFL’s logic we should all agree on a maximum grocery spend at the supermarket, regardless of how much we can afford to buy.

What’s happening here is the less fortunates and the have nots are going to vote to spite / pull back the ones they perceive as having more, while the people far higher up actually end up being able to open a much bigger gap than the one that already exists.

Could be a tight vote. Usually in these situations it ends up being 52/48.
 
Does each division vote independently or are all 72 clubs voting collectively? I can’t imagine how it would work if our division voted against but the other two had a cap.
 
In all honesty, I think those who expect a promotion push next season might be in for a shock. I think it could take us a couple of seasons to adapt to this salary cap - same with a few clubs in this league (Pompey, Sunderland, Ipswich etc). I'm sure everyone at the club is praying it doesn't get passed through on Thursday but it's looking pretty likely as it could be a great thing for smaller clubs.

We're probably only looking at three or four more signings - probably all on loan - at most unless we can act fast in the next couple of days.
 
Clubs spending within their means would require a percentage of revenue / turnover being capped, rather than a flat number that’s applicable to both Sunderland and Accrington, despite one of them regularly getting crowds more than ten times the size of the other. Otherwise you’re just spending within other people’s means. By the EFL’s logic we should all agree on a maximum grocery spend at the supermarket, regardless of how much we can afford to buy.

What’s happening here is the less fortunates and the have nots are going to vote to spite / pull back the ones they perceive as having more, while the people far higher up actually end up being able to open a much bigger gap than the one that already exists.

Could be a tight vote. Usually in these situations it ends up being 52/48.
Very good, a bit clever for the Brexit types on here
 
But isn't a percentage what FFP tried and failed to implement? More nuances mean more loopholes.

I have little sympathy with the argument that Pompey and Sunderland should be crying that they have to recognise a healthy profit and develop some players instead of buying their way back up.

I also think I find our current situation more precarious than most on here. What happens to OUFC if Tiger says he doesnt fancy fronting the money for our losses next season?

FFP failed as the reporting/sanctions regime was pretty toothless. I'll use the French example, if you got caught, you got relegated divisions, not a little 12 point deduction.

Make it very clear what is/isn't allowed as income* and expenditure for the calculation, toughen up the reporting requirements for FFP, and make the sanction relegation at least 2 Divisions and make it very clear legally. Also, if a winding up order is issued by HMRC then it is an instant 6 point deduction.

Get this regime under the management of an independent body under the umbrella of the FA which has the reach to denote teams cheating their way into PL

*ie. Separate capital and revenue so the sale of a ground couldn't be used except for player sales.
 
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.
So how do we reduce the debt by reducing what we can spend on players, when we are incapable of generating the income just to break even without buying and selling? Outside of match tickets it’s pretty much our only source of income due to our circumstances. We would be in a world where our owner is the only person who can keep offsetting the debt singlehandedly - especially since covid has meant we don’t even get a big chunk of the revenue we normally would - and they also can’t choose to try to move us forward because there’s a spending cap in place that would reduce our wage bill to what it used to be in L2. Why would the owner keep offsetting all of our (growing) losses? He / they might not be so keen on floating around achieving L1 mediocrity because at least it’s not too hot and it’s not too cold. That there’s already been a hint today of one of our backers being put off at the thought of not being able to invest should be somewhat of a concern. Where is the return on investment?

It’s a very complex issue, of course, but I don’t think this blanket, black and white approach is going to be the saviour. For some clubs potentially including us, it could actually affect us for the worse.
 
A flat-rate, set equal amount cap is literally insane and makes no sense to anyone with a modicum of common sense - doesn’t it?

If one club in the league has an average attendance of 50,000 and another of 1,000, it makes no sense that both should only be allowed to spend the same amount on wages. A percentage of total income would be a much fairer and more sensible way to go, surely? Or am I missing something?
 
A flat-rate, set equal amount cap is literally insane and makes no sense to anyone with a modicum of common sense - doesn’t it?

If one club in the league has an average attendance of 50,000 and another of 1,000, it makes no sense that both should only be allowed to spend the same amount on wages. A percentage of total income would be a much fairer and more sensible way to go, surely? Or am I missing something?
Spot on. But, you know the EFL doesn't handle common sense very well, at all..
 
A flat-rate, set equal amount cap is literally insane and makes no sense to anyone with a modicum of common sense - doesn’t it?

If one club in the league has an average attendance of 50,000 and another of 1,000, it makes no sense that both should only be allowed to spend the same amount on wages. A percentage of total income would be a much fairer and more sensible way to go, surely? Or am I missing something?
I think that would be OK if it was set at the right level - ie at a level achievable by bigger clubs through ordinary income, but that wouldn't let them overspend via irregular investments from owners
 
I think that would be OK if it was set at the right level - ie at a level achievable by bigger clubs through ordinary income, but that wouldn't let them overspend via irregular investments from owners
I have a horrible feeling that would encourage the owners of the smaller clubs to try as hard as they could to spend the limit on the basis that they would then be able to compete with the 'big boys'.
 
If the EFL had any sense they would appoint an outside organisation, unaffiliated to any league member, but endowed with sufficient financial acumen and experience of tax laws etc. to oversee the existing FFP regulations and enforce said regulations. At the same time it would be prudent to appoint that same organisation to revamp, rewrite those regulations, getting rid of as many loopholes as they can find. The fit and proper owner test would require the same scrutiny and application.

Sadly, none of the above would be of any interest to the self serving muppets in charge at this time.
 
FFP failed as the reporting/sanctions regime was pretty toothless. I'll use the French example, if you got caught, you got relegated divisions, not a little 12 point deduction.

Make it very clear what is/isn't allowed as income* and expenditure for the calculation, toughen up the reporting requirements for FFP, and make the sanction relegation at least 2 Divisions and make it very clear legally. Also, if a winding up order is issued by HMRC then it is an instant 6 point deduction.

Get this regime under the management of an independent body under the umbrella of the FA which has the reach to denote teams cheating their way into PL

*ie. Separate capital and revenue so the sale of a ground couldn't be used except for player sales.

I think the Man City example shows that it's far more than just the lack of punishment, it is also the complexity of the rules which means it takes years of legal disputes to decide if someone broke them in the first place.

It is much easier to say "make the rules clear" that it is to make them clear. You only thought to include ground sales because some brainbox realised you could sell the ground to get around FFP. However you choose to define income and capital, I think someone will find the loophole.

In the NFL, big markets like New York get to spend the same as Green Bay and Kansas. It worked alright for them.
 
If the EFL had any sense they would appoint an outside organisation, unaffiliated to any league member, but endowed with sufficient financial acumen and experience of tax laws etc. to oversee the existing FFP regulations and enforce said regulations. At the same time it would be prudent to appoint that same organisation to revamp, rewrite those regulations, getting rid of as many loopholes as they can find. The fit and proper owner test would require the same scrutiny and application.

Sadly, none of the above would be of any interest to the self serving muppets in charge at this time.
Honestly this is just far more difficult than it seems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom