Salary cap confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
HampshireYellow said:
It’s not a % reduction though is it, it’s a flat cap. If all the clubs just wanted to guarantee eachothers survival they could just all agree to live within their means and not spend more than a % of turnover. Everyone’s happy, no-one is at risk, and it’s fair.
Click to expand...
thing is clubs were bound by ffp apparently , yet more than a few clubs/ club chairmen sanctioned 'bending the rules' like a spoon after uri geller has gotten hold of it , what they agree to and what they actually do in some cases are miles apart ... EFL is spineless and incapable as we all all know already , wage caps, ffp etc the cant or wont 'police' their own rules and cant or wont even apply penalties to rules trangressors in a consistent way. EFL really arent fit for purpose
 
I don't pretend to understand why ffp wasn't working? Was it because it worked quite a lot in the past after clubs reported there accounts a year later. Is a wage cap more in the present? I suppose an important aspect is the penalties.
 
Fred said:
I don't pretend to understand why ffp wasn't working? Was it because it worked quite a lot in the past after clubs reported there accounts a year later. Is a wage cap more in the present? I suppose an important aspect is the penalties.
Click to expand...

The FFP rules in League One & League Two went under the title of the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP).

EFL Official Website - Appendix 5 - Financial Fair Play Regulations

www.efl.com www.efl.com

What it said was that a club’s Player Related Expenditure could not exceed 60% of the club's relevant turnover plus 100% of the club's "Football Fortune" income.

Relevant Turnover is basically TV/Prize money + Matchday income + Commercial income.
Football Fortune income is basically cup runs + transfer income + cash injections from the owner (although the latter is barred from being interest bearing and can't be repayable i.e. it's a gift, not a loan).

Honestly, I think the main issue is loopholes. Things like commercial income are so broadly defined that clubs can find creative ways to make loans from their owners show up on their books that way. I believe Fleetwood, for example, takes this route.
Either that, or the EFL just didn't attempt to enforce the rules at all (I don't know how Bury, for example, got around SCMP when they were spending multiples of their income for a couple of years).

But yeah, why the EFL didn't decide to tighten and actually enforce these rules, rather than institute a flat cap.....
.....I think it's partly because a flat cap is just simpler to enforce. And partly because a majority of the League One and League Two clubs actually wanted to enforce an arbitrary leveling of the competitive playing field.
 
Fred said:
Was it rushed through?
In div2 especially was it necessary for survival?
Click to expand...

Yes it was rushed through. The clubs got the proposal mid May and it is introduced in early August without proper consideration to counter the flaws.
 
tonyw said:
The FFP rules in League One & League Two went under the title of the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP).

EFL Official Website - Appendix 5 - Financial Fair Play Regulations

www.efl.com www.efl.com

What it said was that a club’s Player Related Expenditure could not exceed 60% of the club's relevant turnover plus 100% of the club's "Football Fortune" income.

Relevant Turnover is basically TV/Prize money + Matchday income + Commercial income.
Football Fortune income is basically cup runs + transfer income + cash injections from the owner (although the latter is barred from being interest bearing and can't be repayable i.e. it's a gift, not a loan).

Honestly, I think the main issue is loopholes. Things like commercial income are so broadly defined that clubs can find creative ways to make loans from their owners show up on their books that way. I believe Fleetwood, for example, takes this route.
Either that, or the EFL just didn't attempt to enforce the rules at all (I don't know how Bury, for example, got around SCMP when they were spending multiples of their income for a couple of years).

But yeah, why the EFL didn't decide to tighten and actually enforce these rules, rather than institute a flat cap.....
.....I think it's partly because a flat cap is just simpler to enforce. And partly because a majority of the League One and League Two clubs actually wanted to enforce an arbitrary leveling of the competitive playing field.
Click to expand...

All the FL had to do was tighten up the SCMP rules and introduce a proper governance system. But much easier in theory to chuck out the baby in the bath water until those flaws in a Salary Cap become more and more obvious especially when it has been rushed through.
 
HampshireYellow said:
Not sure if this has been covered already but there was some confusion about the squad sizes, but according to the Oxford Mail:

‘There is also a cap on the number of players aged over 21 in the squad – fixed at a maximum of 22 this season and then 20 from next term.’
Click to expand...

So if you have 22 this year, you have to find a way to cull at least two the following year.

What if you have a bunch of 21 year olds in your squad, the following year are you breaking the rules by keeping them all? Or do you have to have mass sales and then find a new batch of youth to bring into your squad?
 
beyondthefourth said:
So if you have 22 this year, you have to find a way to cull at least two the following year.

What if you have a bunch of 21 year olds in your squad, the following year are you breaking the rules by keeping them all? Or do you have to have mass sales and then find a new batch of youth to bring into your squad?
Click to expand...

Yep, it is a mess and indicative of rushing through without proper scrutiny. Sam Long wouldn't be playing for us with this system in place considering where he was in the squad at 21.
 
Is it just me that finds an 'average' L1 salary of £110,000 quite a remarkable figure?

Forget the numbers in the Prem, how have we reached the stage where 'average' third tier footballers are paid such an astronomical amount compared to most people in the street - gone are the days of supporting lower league clubs because the players were 'just like us'....
 
Marked Ox said:
Yep, it is a mess and indicative of rushing through without proper scrutiny. Sam Long wouldn't be playing for us with this system in place considering where he was in the squad at 21.
Click to expand...
To me it would be a simple move to exempt all players who have come through the U21s from the senior squad limit...(say, anyone who was at the club before their 19th birthday?)
 
mooro said:
To me it would be a simple move to exempt all players who have come through the U21s from the senior squad limit...(say, anyone who was at the club before their 19th birthday?)
Click to expand...

It is amazing what problems could have been ironed out if they had looked to introduce it for the 21/22 season.
 
Marked Ox said:
It is amazing what problems could have been ironed out if they had looked to introduce it for the 21/22 season.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's fairly obvious that the immediate and continuing financial effect of the coronavirus pandemic and the coming recession is what has pushed this to the top of the agenda so quickly. Exactly what mitigation this will bring I am not entirely sure (and there are going to be a whole lot of unintended consequences) but that's what has caused the unseemly rush.
 
ZeroTheHero said:
Yes, but it's fairly obvious that the immediate and continuing financial effect of the coronavirus pandemic and the coming recession is what has pushed this to the top of the agenda so quickly. Exactly what mitigation this will bring I am not entirely sure (and there are going to be a whole lot of unintended consequences) but that's what has caused the unseemly rush.
Click to expand...

Clubs don't have to spend in this one coming season, Rochdale didn't renew any contracts for players out of contract, Nigel Clough left Burton before it was in consideration etc. And a salary cap doesn't change that those same clubs will be losing a lot of income anyway. This is supposed to be a long term solution, not just this coming season and as said with the income loss, the Salary Cap doesn't do the job this season.
 
That's doubtless correct - but the fact that any new signings will be told 'You can only have £1300 per week as a maximum' won't hurt. Do you think this would have gone through so quickly if the current extraordinary circumstances hadn't happened? Because I certainly don't - I think it would (and should) have been considered and tweaked for longer.
 
tonyw said:
The FFP rules in League One & League Two went under the title of the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP).

EFL Official Website - Appendix 5 - Financial Fair Play Regulations

www.efl.com www.efl.com

What it said was that a club’s Player Related Expenditure could not exceed 60% of the club's relevant turnover plus 100% of the club's "Football Fortune" income.

Relevant Turnover is basically TV/Prize money + Matchday income + Commercial income.
Football Fortune income is basically cup runs + transfer income + cash injections from the owner (although the latter is barred from being interest bearing and can't be repayable i.e. it's a gift, not a loan).

Honestly, I think the main issue is loopholes. Things like commercial income are so broadly defined that clubs can find creative ways to make loans from their owners show up on their books that way. I believe Fleetwood, for example, takes this route.
Either that, or the EFL just didn't attempt to enforce the rules at all (I don't know how Bury, for example, got around SCMP when they were spending multiples of their income for a couple of years).

But yeah, why the EFL didn't decide to tighten and actually enforce these rules, rather than institute a flat cap.....
.....I think it's partly because a flat cap is just simpler to enforce. And partly because a majority of the League One and League Two clubs actually wanted to enforce an arbitrary leveling of the competitive playing field.
Click to expand...
I suppose the cap amount stays the same ongoing? Until another vote?
 
Fred said:
I suppose the cap amount stays the same ongoing? Until another vote?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I would have thought now that any vote to either scrap or reduce the cap would need two thirds of clubs (i.e. 16 out of 24) to vote in favor of the change.

Like any institution where you need a two thirds majority to enact change, new laws are tough to pass - but if they do pass, they become tough to remove.

Sadly for anyone who doesn't like the new rule, I think the courts are the only likely way we're going to see the back of it. Most likely via a PFA lawsuit.
 
tonyw said:
Yes, and I would have thought now that any vote to either scrap or reduce the cap would need two thirds of clubs (i.e. 16 out of 24) to vote in favor of the change.

Like any institution where you need a two thirds majority to enact change, new laws are tough to pass - but if they do pass, they become tough to remove.

Sadly for anyone who doesn't like the new rule, I think the courts are the only likely way we're going to see the back of it. Most likely via a PFA lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Pfa are not short of money I think they get 1% of every tv deal
 
tonyw said:
Yes, and I would have thought now that any vote to either scrap or reduce the cap would need two thirds of clubs (i.e. 16 out of 24) to vote in favor of the change.

Like any institution where you need a two thirds majority to enact change, new laws are tough to pass - but if they do pass, they become tough to remove.

Sadly for anyone who doesn't like the new rule, I think the courts are the only likely way we're going to see the back of it. Most likely via a PFA lawsuit.
Click to expand...
So the cap will be a gradual squeeze!
 
When do the championship clubs vote - is it not today?
 
You wonder if prem and champ clubs approve? Yes it makes it harder to compete when L1 clubs come up, but L1 clubs won’t be able to cover much of any loaned players wages. If you’re a champ club with some deadwood or lots of “promising” youngsters, you are gonna struggle to balance the books. No way we could pay much of Browne’s wages were he to come back on loan again. For Prem sides less bothered about recouping wages, smaller squads could be ideal for getting young players game time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Matches OUWFC pre-season fixtures confirmed
Replies
2
Views
1K
mooro
mooro
Back
Top Bottom