|
|
Post by laughinggas on Jul 18, 2020 17:07:01 GMT
If I understand the rules for this coming season is
Budget, £2.5 million.
Squad, 20 players over 21 with 8 coming thru the academy.
In answer to another thread, this suggests Bennett should go no matter what.
Does it also mean couple of other senior players to go?
Not sure how many over 21 year old players we have and how many have come thru the academy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 20:44:47 GMT
If I understand the rules for this coming season is Budget, £2.5 million. Squad, 20 players over 21 with 8 coming thru the academy. In answer to another thread, this suggests Bennett should go no matter what. Does it also mean couple of other senior players to go? Not sure how many over 21 year old players we have and how many have come thru the academy. Where did you get that information? How will clubs without an academy comply if this were true? Bennett is under contract for another season so nothing can be done regarding him unless he agrees to it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Jul 18, 2020 21:17:44 GMT
On BBC site and others.
Academy or home grown.
|
|
GasMacc1
Les Bradd
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,423 
|
Post by GasMacc1 on Jul 18, 2020 21:22:32 GMT
League One and League Two clubs would have to operate under squad salary caps, according to proposals put forward by the English Football League. Link to BBC Article on Salary Cap for League One and League Two
"It is suggested clubs would have a season's grace in which to comply with the new measures, while clubs relegated from the Championship would also require a transition period given the disparity in player earnings and income between the second and third tiers". |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 19, 2020 8:52:25 GMT
League One and League Two clubs would have to operate under squad salary caps, according to proposals put forward by the English Football League. Link to BBC Article on Salary Cap for League One and League Two
"It is suggested clubs would have a season's grace in which to comply with the new measures, while clubs relegated from the Championship would also require a transition period given the disparity in player earnings and income between the second and third tiers". A salary cap is a great idea. But I just can't see the proposals going through - nothing on this said since May. The 'bigger' Clubs (Portsmouth, Sunderland, Ipswich etc) would not want a flat playing field. They would like the slopey pitch to stay just the way it is. The EFL just aren't strong enough to enforce a salary cap, and then effectively police it. Even if it did come to pass, I'm sure the big boys could afford the Man Citeh lawyers... |
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 19, 2020 10:20:21 GMT
League One and League Two clubs would have to operate under squad salary caps, according to proposals put forward by the English Football League. Link to BBC Article on Salary Cap for League One and League Two
"It is suggested clubs would have a season's grace in which to comply with the new measures, while clubs relegated from the Championship would also require a transition period given the disparity in player earnings and income between the second and third tiers". A salary cap is a great idea. But I just can't see the proposals going through - nothing on this said since May. The 'bigger' Clubs (Portsmouth, Sunderland, Ipswich etc) would not want a flat playing field. They would like the slopey pitch to stay just the way it is. The EFL just aren't strong enough to enforce a salary cap, and then effectively police it. Even if it did come to pass, I'm sure the big boys could afford the Man Citeh lawyers... The problem with the whole idea of a salary cap (and you see this in other UK sports where it's been applied) is that it doesn't really work within the wider framework of the way we tend to run our sports. Salary caps are largely applied successfully in closed franchise like leagues that exist in the US and Australia (and some other places). In those leagues there is not just an assumption of parity on spending on income but also spending on other things such as player development, ticket pricing, profit sharing, TV revenues etc. The whole model is totally different because it's based on the idea that it is the League/Sport, not the indviduals clubs, that is the primary business. So instead of clubs in competiton with each other commercially as well as on the field, this model sees the money funnelled up to the league and then redistributed to the clubs in a kind of virtuous circle - with relative parity being a massive selling point for the league when it comes to selling TV rights particularly in lucrative local markets (ie. Your local team might be crap now but in the 6 year cycle of a TV deal they will very likely be one of the best teams in the country at some point).
This is completely alien to the way UK sport works - it implies things like drafts for young players, centrally planned commercial deals for things like shirt sales and ticket pricing. It also can't really work in an open league environment because obviously owners will throw the absolute kitchen sink at trying to avoid relegation most of the time. For good or ill our sports work on a zero-sum basis - if one team is doing relatively well another team must be doing relatively badly. Closed leagues work on a positive sum basis - that every club does better overtime by creating these virtuous circles of which salary cap is only a small part normally. Clubs have a clear ceiling and a clear floor with the aim of providing long-term stability andn growth - that doesn't exist in UK sport on the whole.
A salary cap (which could only work on a club wide level not an individual one anyway) only works to create the kind of parity/fairness if it's bolted onto a load of other stuff that we might not want and could create perverse incentives. It's no magic bullet and I'd argue that sports that have applied it in this country have not done so particularly successfully because they've looked abroad and gone 'salary cap is what provides stability' without noticing that it's part of a much larger, and very alien, approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 19, 2020 10:44:29 GMT
A salary cap is a great idea. But I just can't see the proposals going through - nothing on this said since May. The 'bigger' Clubs (Portsmouth, Sunderland, Ipswich etc) would not want a flat playing field. They would like the slopey pitch to stay just the way it is. The EFL just aren't strong enough to enforce a salary cap, and then effectively police it. Even if it did come to pass, I'm sure the big boys could afford the Man Citeh lawyers... The problem with the whole idea of a salary cap (and you see this in other UK sports where it's been applied) is that it doesn't really work within the wider framework of the way we tend to run our sports. Salary caps are largely applied successfully in closed franchise like leagues that exist in the US and Australia (and some other places). In those leagues there is not just an assumption of parity on spending on income but also spending on other things such as player development, ticket pricing, profit sharing, TV revenues etc. The whole model is totally different because it's based on the idea that it is the League/Sport, not the indviduals clubs, that is the primary business. So instead of clubs in competiton with each other commercially as well as on the field, this model sees the money funnelled up to the league and then redistributed to the clubs in a kind of virtuous circle - with relative parity being a massive selling point for the league when it comes to selling TV rights particularly in lucrative local markets (ie. Your local team might be crap now but in the 6 year cycle of a TV deal they will very likely be one of the best teams in the country at some point).
This is completely alien to the way UK sport works - it implies things like drafts for young players, centrally planned commercial deals for things like shirt sales and ticket pricing. It also can't really work in an open league environment because obviously owners will throw the absolute kitchen sink at trying to avoid relegation most of the time. For good or ill our sports work on a zero-sum basis - if one team is doing relatively well another team must be doing relatively badly. Closed leagues work on a positive sum basis - that every club does better overtime by creating these virtuous circles of which salary cap is only a small part normally. Clubs have a clear ceiling and a clear floor with the aim of providing long-term stability andn growth - that doesn't exist in UK sport on the whole.
A salary cap (which could only work on a club wide level not an individual one anyway) only works to create the kind of parity/fairness if it's bolted onto a load of other stuff that we might not want and could create perverse incentives. It's no magic bullet and I'd argue that sports that have applied it in this country have not done so particularly successfully because they've looked abroad and gone 'salary cap is what provides stability' without noticing that it's part of a much larger, and very alien, approach.
ooh, that's a very good post irish interesting that the egg chasers are trying, and thus far failing, to move to a franchise model for their top tier. I don't support it, but it has clear advantages for investors and others |
|
alanrg
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 91
|
Post by alanrg on Jul 19, 2020 10:59:25 GMT
Think u will find salary cap will start in 2021/2022 season
|
|
|
|
Post by gasheadnaboo on Jul 19, 2020 11:34:33 GMT
You'd eventually end up with a situation where the teams that are relegated invariably, save for the odd financial basket case clubs, will finish in the top 3. Also unless the financial incentive for being in the Championship was greater, you'd probably see owners not wanting to go up and costs increasing.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 19, 2020 12:03:53 GMT
The problem with the whole idea of a salary cap (and you see this in other UK sports where it's been applied) is that it doesn't really work within the wider framework of the way we tend to run our sports. Salary caps are largely applied successfully in closed franchise like leagues that exist in the US and Australia (and some other places). In those leagues there is not just an assumption of parity on spending on income but also spending on other things such as player development, ticket pricing, profit sharing, TV revenues etc. The whole model is totally different because it's based on the idea that it is the League/Sport, not the indviduals clubs, that is the primary business. So instead of clubs in competiton with each other commercially as well as on the field, this model sees the money funnelled up to the league and then redistributed to the clubs in a kind of virtuous circle - with relative parity being a massive selling point for the league when it comes to selling TV rights particularly in lucrative local markets (ie. Your local team might be crap now but in the 6 year cycle of a TV deal they will very likely be one of the best teams in the country at some point).
This is completely alien to the way UK sport works - it implies things like drafts for young players, centrally planned commercial deals for things like shirt sales and ticket pricing. It also can't really work in an open league environment because obviously owners will throw the absolute kitchen sink at trying to avoid relegation most of the time. For good or ill our sports work on a zero-sum basis - if one team is doing relatively well another team must be doing relatively badly. Closed leagues work on a positive sum basis - that every club does better overtime by creating these virtuous circles of which salary cap is only a small part normally. Clubs have a clear ceiling and a clear floor with the aim of providing long-term stability andn growth - that doesn't exist in UK sport on the whole.
A salary cap (which could only work on a club wide level not an individual one anyway) only works to create the kind of parity/fairness if it's bolted onto a load of other stuff that we might not want and could create perverse incentives. It's no magic bullet and I'd argue that sports that have applied it in this country have not done so particularly successfully because they've looked abroad and gone 'salary cap is what provides stability' without noticing that it's part of a much larger, and very alien, approach.
ooh, that's a very good post irish interesting that the egg chasers are trying, and thus far failing, to move to a franchise model for their top tier. I don't support it, but it has clear advantages for investors and others Irish is a bloody show off. Don't listen to him - bringing his research and reasonable debate to the proceedings... Of course, I can't disagree with any of it. I understand that EVERY professional North American sport is based on a franchise model with no promotion/relegation. It really is a totally different business model to the traditional English/European set up. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jul 19, 2020 14:05:46 GMT
Disagree with caps on earnings in private industry.
If you subscribe to capitalism, you have to accept it's all driven by supply and demand. Just way 'tis..
|
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 19, 2020 14:14:29 GMT
Disagree with caps on earnings in private industry. If you subscribe to capitalism, you have to accept it's all driven by supply and demand. Just way 'tis.. the franchise model is effectively a monopoly |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 15:02:06 GMT
ooh, that's a very good post irish interesting that the egg chasers are trying, and thus far failing, to move to a franchise model for their top tier. I don't support it, but it has clear advantages for investors and others Irish is a bloody show off. Don't listen to him - bringing his research and reasonable debate to the proceedings... Of course, I can't disagree with any of it. I understand that EVERY professional North American sport is based on a franchise model with no promotion/relegation. It really is a totally different business model to the traditional English/European set up. Indeed, Irish as eloquent as always. One part of the equation that he did not quite, with particular reference to the American experience, mention is the how and what of the award of a franchise. The demands of obtaining a franchise in the first instance are immense, from financial capital, a viable business plan with people named, and not least, a stadium. Ex players putting a few bob in and financing a club like Salford to the "pro leagues" would never pass muster. Hence in America you put a lot in and once in it's a relatively level playing field and a degree of success is achievable. I am not convinced of the attractiveness of the American model, but even less so of the English model which has descended into a chaotic playground for a wealthy foreign elite. The wealth of many of those has been procured by very dubious means. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 16:42:46 GMT
Disagree with caps on earnings in private industry. If you subscribe to capitalism, you have to accept it's all driven by supply and demand. Just way 'tis.. Not workable here. When clubs are doing badly the players wouldn't care. When big profits are being made they would all be out on strike crying their eyes out claiming that the system wasn't fair. And if anybody thinks that you would avoid that by having the players contracted, an agreement freely entered into by 2 willing parties, just look at what happened with the US female football team when they thought they could take legal action to get more. And that story isn't run yet, they'll keep appealing as long as they can in the hope of getting someone weak enough to find in their favour. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jul 19, 2020 18:14:33 GMT
Disagree with caps on earnings in private industry. If you subscribe to capitalism, you have to accept it's all driven by supply and demand. Just way 'tis.. Not workable here. When clubs are doing badly the players wouldn't care. When big profits are being made they would all be out on strike crying their eyes out claiming that the system wasn't fair. And if anybody thinks that you would avoid that by having the players contracted, an agreement freely entered into by 2 willing parties, just look at what happened with the US female football team when they thought they could take legal action to get more. And that story isn't run yet, they'll keep appealing as long as they can in the hope of getting someone weak enough to find in their favour. Wasn't there an issue (or maybe more) that a Blackpool's player was wage capped at maximum, but he also had a "part time job" as manager of a hotel to top up wages? In the 50s? Stanley Matthews? Even if this isn't true, I'm sure there will be many incentives for clubs to entice potential players in during ant wage cap structure....and we're back where we started a la Jimmy Hill. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 19:31:00 GMT
Not workable here. When clubs are doing badly the players wouldn't care. When big profits are being made they would all be out on strike crying their eyes out claiming that the system wasn't fair. And if anybody thinks that you would avoid that by having the players contracted, an agreement freely entered into by 2 willing parties, just look at what happened with the US female football team when they thought they could take legal action to get more. And that story isn't run yet, they'll keep appealing as long as they can in the hope of getting someone weak enough to find in their favour. Wasn't there an issue (or maybe more) that a Blackpool's player was wage capped at maximum, but he also had a "part time job" as manager of a hotel to top up wages? In the 50s? Stanley Matthews? Even if this isn't true, I'm sure there will be many incentives for clubs to entice potential players in during ant wage cap structure....and we're back where we started a la Jimmy Hill. People find ways around rules. Just look at Citeh, putting their middle finger up at the authorities and saying 'Come after us and you'll need to go for Barca and PSG as well' and we have more money than you, so go for it if you want. The game's out of control. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jul 20, 2020 7:16:29 GMT
Wasn't there an issue (or maybe more) that a Blackpool's player was wage capped at maximum, but he also had a "part time job" as manager of a hotel to top up wages? In the 50s? Stanley Matthews? Even if this isn't true, I'm sure there will be many incentives for clubs to entice potential players in during ant wage cap structure....and we're back where we started a la Jimmy Hill. People find ways around rules. Just look at Citeh, putting their middle finger up at the authorities and saying 'Come after us and you'll need to go for Barca and PSG as well' and we have more money than you, so go for it if you want. The game's out of control. Exactly! That's why salary caps won't work. The control has been handed from the working man/woman to big corporations. And it all appears to be served willingly.. |
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 21, 2020 22:04:09 GMT
ooh, that's a very good post irish interesting that the egg chasers are trying, and thus far failing, to move to a franchise model for their top tier. I don't support it, but it has clear advantages for investors and others Irish is a bloody show off. Don't listen to him - bringing his research and reasonable debate to the proceedings... Of course, I can't disagree with any of it. I understand that EVERY professional North American sport is based on a franchise model with no promotion/relegation. It really is a totally different business model to the traditional English/European set up. To be honest I'm quite conflicted.
Oldie and AMPG are also both absolutely right with their comments - it is a monopoly and franchises are of immense value even the poorly performing ones. To the extent that I believe the current trends is for them to be large consortiums or hedge funds rather than individual owners. Several longstanding US owners have been priced out of their sports and forced to sell in recent years.Interestingly non-US investors are still quite rare compared with the global market place in European football clubs.
So there are significant negative factors. One of the many nonsense misconceptions that you often hear is that the US model represents some kind of collective almost socialistic approach to sport. This is because people confuse the sporting model with the business model. What it actually represents is a monopoly cartel that uses its bargaining position to extract maximum value as the only game in town in all kinds of directions. One of the classic examples is the way the league uses the franchise system to strong arm cities into paying to construct new stadiums which are then used to maximise income for the owners. They use the threat of moving the team to force city authorites to bankroll these developments under the threat of being forever knows as the 'guy who lost the team'.
So all of these things are definitely true and problematic in quite a lot of different ways. However, obviously I also enjoy US sports and particularly like the sporting parity it produces. I'd have no desire to see US sports apply a model from European football instead. It works for them and to be honest it evolved over time just as organically as football in the UK has just in a very different way.
The point though is that sports bodies (particularly in the UK) tend to look at the US as if you could cherrypick certain aspects of its system and apply them selectively to a completely different business model and it's actually quite a delicate complicated system. I'd argue Rugby of both codes (and cricket to a lesser extent) have tried and completely failed to develop a workable and logical salary cap. FFP doesn't work and anything harder than that would create massive exceptions. Whatever you think of Man City's case and their dodgy dealings - their basic point that FFP was set up to protect the existing big clubs from outside competition is correct. Salary caps without some aspect of revenue sharing just protect the already wealthy - they don't lead to better parity.
Maybe there's a way it could be done but I've yet to see a convincing case.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 22, 2020 8:21:36 GMT
Irish is a bloody show off. Don't listen to him - bringing his research and reasonable debate to the proceedings... Of course, I can't disagree with any of it. I understand that EVERY professional North American sport is based on a franchise model with no promotion/relegation. It really is a totally different business model to the traditional English/European set up. To be honest I'm quite conflicted.
Oldie and AMPG are also both absolutely right with their comments - it is a monopoly and franchises are of immense value even the poorly performing ones. To the extent that I believe the current trends is for them to be large consortiums or hedge funds rather than individual owners. Several longstanding US owners have been priced out of their sports and forced to sell in recent years.Interestingly non-US investors are still quite rare compared with the global market place in European football clubs.
So there are significant negative factors. One of the many nonsense misconceptions that you often hear is that the US model represents some kind of collective almost socialistic approach to sport. This is because people confuse the sporting model with the business model. What it actually represents is a monopoly cartel that uses its bargaining position to extract maximum value as the only game in town in all kinds of directions. One of the classic examples is the way the league uses the franchise system to strong arm cities into paying to construct new stadiums which are then used to maximise income for the owners. They use the threat of moving the team to force city authorites to bankroll these developments under the threat of being forever knows as the 'guy who lost the team'.
So all of these things are definitely true and problematic in quite a lot of different ways. However, obviously I also enjoy US sports and particularly like the sporting parity it produces. I'd have no desire to see US sports apply a model from European football instead. It works for them and to be honest it evolved over time just as organically as football in the UK has just in a very different way.
The point though is that sports bodies (particularly in the UK) tend to look at the US as if you could cherrypick certain aspects of its system and apply them selectively to a completely different business model and it's actually quite a delicate complicated system. I'd argue Rugby of both codes (and cricket to a lesser extent) have tried and completely failed to develop a workable and logical salary cap. FFP doesn't work and anything harder than that would create massive exceptions. Whatever you think of Man City's case and their dodgy dealings - their basic point that FFP was set up to protect the existing big clubs from outside competition is correct. Salary caps without some aspect of revenue sharing just protect the already wealthy - they don't lead to better parity.
Maybe there's a way it could be done but I've yet to see a convincing case.
An interesting read. I guess the conclusion is... there is no answer. I do think Financial Fair Play was designed with good intent, to protect Clubs from their own stupidity/over-spending. Ultimately all it has done is (in theory) prevent Clubs from trying to buy their way into the "Big Club Club". Although of course Man Citeh have blatantly flouted the rules anyway. Result - UEFA rake in £10mil in fines, Man City pay that out of loose change. UEFA happy, Man Citeh happy. Sad, but it's all about the money. I would personally have loved to see them banned from European competition for a couple of years. And then chase down PSG, Real Madrid etc. Sounds like UEFA have absolutely no appetite for that. They like fines more than banning the Clubs that effectively make UEFA it's money... which is kind of obvious really. It seems to me that British / European football has it's roots in rule-making, organising sport and creating 'fairness' (promotion and relegation). Making serious money out of the "business" came much later, you could argue not really until the Sky Sports era? Around this point sport evolved into a business. The US franchise model has it's roots in maximising profit out of a business, that business just happens to be sport. And never the twain shall meet. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2020 10:18:26 GMT
Irish is a bloody show off. Don't listen to him - bringing his research and reasonable debate to the proceedings... Of course, I can't disagree with any of it. I understand that EVERY professional North American sport is based on a franchise model with no promotion/relegation. It really is a totally different business model to the traditional English/European set up.
Maybe there's a way it could be done but I've yet to see a convincing case.
If it's just FFP you are talking about then it's not difficult. Just make a list of income that qualifies and stick to it. Then, don't mess around for years. Part of the reason City have walked away with a 10m Euro fine is that some of the allegations are more than 5 years old, but that's also tied in with them obstructing the investigations, which they've been found guilty of, they've even been arguing about what the term '5 years' actually means. UEFA have been totally outgunned legally here. The whole thing is a complete farce Citeh are the perfect example of the club that FFP should be preventing from achieving their level of bought success. Not even the biggest club in their own City. |
|
