stevegrant Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Barnsley, while clarifying their position on the speculation surrounding Mark Robins' future at the club, have revealed that a meeting of all (presumably current, rather than next season's) Championship chairmen/CEOs has been convened for this coming Thursday to discuss a proposed "break-even test" for clubs in the division. Clearly, based on last year's financial figures and the likelihood that the position probably hasn't changed a great deal this year, it's going to have an impact on us. The proposal is for a test similar to that being brought in by UEFA for clubs wishing to compete in the Champions League and Europa League competitions, with sanctions applied to clubs who don't "pass" the test, which could include transfer embargos, a competition tax or a fine structure depending on how badly the club fails the test. The competition tax would likely be a system where clubs that fail the test have to pay an amount as a proportion of their losses into a central fund which then gets distributed among the clubs that do pass the test - that then gives clubs an additional incentive to break even, as they'll then be eligible for a payout from this fund. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 i thought in europe, ie, to play in european competitions like the CL etc... you had to prove a break even balance sheet over a 3 year period...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 14 May, 2011 Author Share Posted 14 May, 2011 That's correct. I don't know whether this one covers a similar period or if they're going to do it on an annual basis - I suspect they'd rather do it annually rather than over a longer period of time, but that then doesn't take into consideration that one year a club might have a profitable year and the next it might make a loss to a similar value, which would obviously then be evened out over that two-year period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Any thoughts? Yep poopey are gonna be Soooooooooo screwed. Meanwhile the "let's all play by the same rules" movement is gaining strength, but so many ways of bend not break the rules still exist. As someone posted elsewhere, Saints could put up a signed shirt for auction on ebay and the Liebherrs could buy it for 10 mil. Also what constitutes the finance? Loans are one thing but Grants? (no not you) Donations? It has to come in but it needs to come in across all football everywhere at the same time and the sanctions need to be MUCH tougher even for bending rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Can't see how it could affect us. NC will just make sure there's money available in a bank account somewhere to indemnify the club's outgoings and therefore we will appear 'break even' or even profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 14 May, 2011 Author Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Meanwhile the "let's all play by the same rules" movement is gaining strength, but so many ways of bend not break the rules still exist. As someone posted elsewhere, Saints could put up a signed shirt for auction on ebay and the Liebherrs could buy it for 10 mil. I would imagine they would have "fair market value" rules to cover that sort of thing, just like UEFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Here is the article in question... http://www.barnsleyfc.co.uk/page/ClubStatements/0,,10309~2359777,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 A Swiss bank account (which Mr. Cortese knows all about) could come in very handy here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 14 May, 2011 Author Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Can't see how it could affect us. NC will just make sure there's money available in a bank account somewhere to indemnify the club's outgoings and therefore we will appear 'break even' or even profitable. It's not that simple, though. These rules would almost certainly dictate what types of income and expenditure is counted towards the break-even test. For example, finance for infrastructure (building/renovating facilities, etc) would almost certainly not count towards it, as that's generally regarded as good long-term planning. It won't be a case of just looking at a bank statement, seeing £25m resting in it, and saying "OK, that's fine, you pass". Just because a company has cash in a bank account, that doesn't automatically mean it's solvent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntingdon Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Football will definitely benefit if a break even rule is implemented throughout every league We shouldn't be too worried, we'll be in the top 6 clubs next year for gates/turnover, so we'd still have bigger budgets than most clubs, especially the ferret twitchers from Barnsley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 14 May, 2011 Author Share Posted 14 May, 2011 I actually think rules like this will be to our advantage at Championship level. While at the moment things are skewed in favour of the clubs who are receiving parachute payments from the Premier League, these clubs also have enormous and unsustainable wage bills. As a result, they all make losses while they're in the Championship. As a result, they've then got a choice of either cut the wage bill dramatically to comply with the break-even test or potentially suffer a further financial penalty with that money being redistributed to those who do comply. If we can get ourselves to a situation where we're breaking even - certainly possible - then we stand to reap the benefits of that at the expense of those whose income would still be greater than ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 I would imagine they would have "fair market value" rules to cover that sort of thing, just like UEFA. OK so for example, a foreign based owner picks up a local football club in whatever league in a country not currently covered. Signs Messi for 200 mil including wages and lends him to Saints. Just saying the problem is that lawyers and accountants are always creative when rules are written down. More helpful would be to tighten up the rules on Admin. Any Director of a Club entering Admin is banned from any employment in football for a minimum of 10 years and from holding any Directorship in UK for a minimum of 3 years. All Football Club Directors must sign personal guarantees up to 20% of the net debt of a football club. Administration is a 15 point penalty in year one and a 5 point penalty in year two. Players contracts are automatically halved in remuneration in the event of relegation. Clubs retain the right to withdraw remuneration from players refusing to play. Whole raft of other routes to go down but there is ONE common denominator in all financial mismanagement in football. It is ALWAYS the fans that suffer, NEVER the Directors. Make THEM liable and you will not need these rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Does this mean we can't sign Ronaldo just because we are in the Championship? Hardly fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 14 May, 2011 Author Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Any Director of a Club entering Admin is banned from any employment in football for a minimum of 10 years and from holding any Directorship in UK for a minimum of 3 years. Agreed, although would argue that exemptions should be granted to directors who are appointed in situations where they're essentially fire-fighting, but then that would create further grey areas. All Football Club Directors must sign personal guarantees up to 20% of the net debt of a football club. Disagree. Directors should not necessarily be independently wealthy people. Club directors should, in theory, be people who know how to run a business and/or a football club, and responsibility should not fall upon the directors to finance the club when it should be self-sufficient. Administration is a 15 point penalty in year one and a 5 point penalty in year two. I'd say a better deterrent against clubs racking up debts and spending money they haven't got would be automatic relegation for clubs who enter administration. A points penalty has been proven to not be a big enough deterrent. Players contracts are automatically halved in remuneration in the event of relegation. Ultimately, that's got to be down to the clubs to implement, and unfortunately there will always be clubs willing to leave out that clause from a player's contract if it's going to be the difference between that player signing for them and that player signing for a rival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st alex Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 I actually think rules like this will be to our advantage at Championship level. While at the moment things are skewed in favour of the clubs who are receiving parachute payments from the Premier League, these clubs also have enormous and unsustainable wage bills. As a result, they all make losses while they're in the Championship. As a result, they've then got a choice of either cut the wage bill dramatically to comply with the break-even test or potentially suffer a further financial penalty with that money being redistributed to those who do comply. If we can get ourselves to a situation where we're breaking even - certainly possible - then we stand to reap the benefits of that at the expense of those whose income would still be greater than ours. Hopefully it would work out like that, although even when p*mpey were in admin and just after and 'had' to cut their wage bill they still kept and signed what must be some huge earners (Kanu, Mokonea, Lawernce, Mullins, Kitson, Nugent) - any other team would have sold these players for whatever offers they got and signed up some league 1/championship players for free or peanuts. Any rule would have to be properly defined and enforced to restore faith in the football authorities and end double standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 My thoughts are that I hate it when accountancy becomes part of the competition, but that the best way to get fair competition is through shared club ownership of the League - but that runs the risk of it becoming a closed shop wherever the cutoff lies. The UEFA rules are explained here (it's a pdf : http://en.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf), and it makes no sense for the FL to do anything which isn't in line with this. For those who don't want to read the actual document, there's a BBC article about Chelsea / Man City and the UEFA regulations here : http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/04/having_made_gigantic_losses_la.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Agreed, although would argue that exemptions should be granted to directors who are appointed in situations where they're essentially fire-fighting, but then that would create further grey areas. Disagree. Directors should not necessarily be independently wealthy people. Club directors should, in theory, be people who know how to run a business and/or a football club, and responsibility should not fall upon the directors to finance the club when it should be self-sufficient. I'd say a better deterrent against clubs racking up debts and spending money they haven't got would be automatic relegation for clubs who enter administration. A points penalty has been proven to not be a big enough deterrent. Ultimately, that's got to be down to the clubs to implement, and unfortunately there will always be clubs willing to leave out that clause from a player's contract if it's going to be the difference between that player signing for them and that player signing for a rival. Again the issue with the automatic relegation is that the people who made the bad decisions aren't the ones who suffer it's that fans. One concept UK labour Law may help with would be to allow a redundancy in the case of Admin for players. In poopey's case they couldn't have shifted the high wage earners if they had tried but like lots of backroom staff, applying normal redundancy to a player - 2 years service gets 2 weeks wages or whatever. Company Turn-Around status for a Director - that shouldn't be difficult to do - Administrator effectively is that anyway. Agree Directors should not be independently wealthy, the point is there MUST be a penalty system that punishes bad Board Room decisions. But my basic tenet in all this is Directors make bad decisions on running football clubs. They should get penalised first. No matter what rules you dream up. There will be get arounds. FFS how many on here have never tried to get around the tax system! (don't answer that Big Brother and all that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Isn't one of the issues with the Financial Fair Play rules that the way players' contracts are accounted means that their value depreciates/amortizes over the term of the contract, so if you sign Tevez for £40m on a 4 year deal, every year you have a £10 million loss to start with, and that's for EVERY player without even considering the wages? I suspect I'm misunderstanding it somehow, so if anyone wants to clear that up for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 So we go up and our income must meet our expenditure at least? We cannot rely on an income boost (not loan) from our owner? Yet one of the clubs coming down from the Premier can rely on the income from the parachute payments? Unfair restraint of trade? In principle I think football needs something to make it balance it's books but it has to be from a level playing field! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 The parachute payments then will give the teams coming down a massive advantage.It is a very complex issue. There is only one way and that is to not give points penalties but do what was done Salisbury, a 2 division drop. that would focus the minds of directors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 14 May, 2011 Author Share Posted 14 May, 2011 So we go up and our income must meet our expenditure at least? Yes. I don't see why that is a bad thing. We cannot rely on an income boost (not loan) from our owner? It's basically financial doping. The majority complained when Abramovich came on the scene and started spunking money Chelsea didn't actually have, creating an imbalance and artificially inflating transfer fees and wages way above what most other clubs could afford. The reason many clubs are in financial difficulty is because they have either had someone pumping in money who has then stopped doing so, or they've been trying to keep up with the clubs who have had cash injections from benefactors. Are you advocating that the only clubs that can compete are those with benefactors willing to pay out of their own pocket, and ******** to anyone else who can't (or don't want to) attract such an individual? IMO, that scenario will only attract more of the sort of people who have been involved down the road, wanting to find a business willing to act as a laundry. Yet one of the clubs coming down from the Premier can rely on the income from the parachute payments? The clubs coming down from the Premier League also invariably retain Premier League wage bills for at least the first year, which then guarantee losses, and as such they would fail this break-even test, with more money being distributed to the other clubs as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 FFS how many on here have never tried to get around the tax system! (don't answer that Big Brother and all that) What tax system are you talking about No income tax in UAE for you or eric and I just move to a country where am non resident so pay no income tax there either:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Isn't one of the issues with the Financial Fair Play rules that the way players' contracts are accounted means that their value depreciates/amortizes over the term of the contract, so if you sign Tevez for £40m on a 4 year deal, every year you have a £10 million loss to start with, and that's for EVERY player without even considering the wages? I suspect I'm misunderstanding it somehow, so if anyone wants to clear that up for me... But, in such a case, it would be a write-down of asset value, wouldn't it? In the same way that you get a write-down on, say, company cars. That's not the same as income (from whatever source) being compared with expenditure (all wages / overheads etc.). Or am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 5 Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 It would be interesting to know if any of the 92 come anywhere near breaking even at the moment. Is this info collated anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobM Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 (edited) The clubs coming down from the Premier League also invariably retain Premier League wage bills for at least the first year, which then guarantee losses, and as such they would fail this break-even test, with more money being distributed to the other clubs as a result. I see this as part of the problem, rather than justification for the parachute payment. It's up to the club, while in the Prem, to ensure they can survive should they be relegated and surviving in this case includes complying with the league rules. They should have wage-cut clauses in players contracts, they should have money in the bank as a buffer to ensure further debt isn't required and they should be held accountable if they have committed to too much and cannot service that. It would only be a problem operating like this if some clubs don't want to join in, causing players to reject moves to clubs that enforce a wage cut clause upon relegation. As you say yourself, clubs come into trouble when they have been, or are still reliant on money from other benefactors. IMO, this includes the parachute payment. At worst, keep the parachute payment but for one year only, to allow clubs the time to restructure. Any time needed longer than that is either a conscious decision not to release players, or bad management in signing players on long contracts and not being able to maintain that commitment. Edited 14 May, 2011 by RobM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
positivepete Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 (edited) In the UEFA rules expenditure on infrastructure is not counted for the P&L, nor is non-football related income (such as radio stations) counted as income. So the break-even rules are related to football activities. So those with higher gate income will benefit. As there is not much television income in the Championship, our gate income will help massively. The UEFA rules also state that the break-even is to calculated over a three year period, and there is provision for increase in capital through owners cash injections, as long as they are in the form of share capital not loans. This is why Arsenal may be the only team left in European competition in a couple of years! Edited 14 May, 2011 by positivepete add tag about Arsenal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 It would be interesting to know if any of the 92 come anywhere near breaking even at the moment. Is this info collated anywhere? The PL debt figure is around 3.3 billion according to the article where Whelan was trying to get a wage cap introduced. Again that won't work in the PL as it will be a percentage of income so it will stop clubs overspending but it will also mean that obody will be able to challenge the big 4 with their extra CL incomes when it comes to players making the PL even more boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever a red and white Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 I recenlty did a piece about Arsenal and the Financial Fair Play Rules. In the CL as stated it is taken over a three-year period. So they calcualte an avergae from that. But there is arguably a loop whole that can massively increase a club's revenue. For instance and example:# Man City could chairman could sell a corporate box to a close friend for a single match for £25m. It would come under revenue surely. And of course help balance the books. This at least is an example that I heard, how legal it is I don;t know, but concerns have been raised about ways around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landford.saint Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Leyton Orient I understand are run on a break-even footing. Partly I guess due to the rents from the flats in the corners of the ground. Now this is not strictly football related income. Therefore would this rent be included by the FL. In their 3 year test. If it is what is then stopping a club having some kind of totally unconnected income (engineering or diesel injection single rail technology) as an income for the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
positivepete Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 The UEFA rules are also framed to stop a benefactor getting one of his companies to sponsor the club for a silly sum to artificially boost income. I am pretty sure there was an interview with NC when the drafts of these rules came from UEFA, where he said he was pleased that the new rules were in line with the principles in our business plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobM Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Leyton Orient I understand are run on a break-even footing. Partly I guess due to the rents from the flats in the corners of the ground. Now this is not strictly football related income. Therefore would this rent be included by the FL. In their 3 year test. If it is what is then stopping a club having some kind of totally unconnected income (engineering or diesel injection single rail technology) as an income for the club. Why shouldn't it count? It's no different to SFC making money out of Halo Events and using St.Marys to host events and conferences. I think this sort of thing should be encourage... not renting parts of the stadium as housing necessarily, but acting like a business and finding new revenue streams away from football to support and develop the club. If the club sets itself up in any other industry and makes money out of it, money which can be used to support and develop the club, this has to be better than relying on Sugar Daddies, debt and gifts from the leagues above, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 Why shouldn't it count? It's no different to SFC making money out of Halo Events and using St.Marys to host events and conferences. I think this sort of thing should be encourage... not renting parts of the stadium as housing necessarily, but acting like a business and finding new revenue streams away from football to support and develop the club. If the club sets itself up in any other industry and makes money out of it, money which can be used to support and develop the club, this has to be better than relying on Sugar Daddies, debt and gifts from the leagues above, no? Do football clubs invest revenues in the markets - in safe assets such as government bonds? No reason why they couldn't or shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 14 May, 2011 Share Posted 14 May, 2011 I know what Granty means and that the concept is what football needs to aim at. I think there will be too many loopholes. But. And I think this must be helped by a couple of Ales. What I think he has done (inadvertently) is to create our first ever "Rupert was actually right" thread Radio Stations, Using the Stadium for other money earning ideas. Investing the cash it generates.... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobM Posted 15 May, 2011 Share Posted 15 May, 2011 That's because Rupert was a businessman, always and only. He was good at that, regardless of our shared hatred towards him. But the trouble was, he could only see our club as a business and totally neglected anything that didn't suit his single-minded, arrogant and, let's face it, flawed view of how SFC should be run. He neglected the importance of fans, he ignored the opportunity to build on the momentum of a great season and FA Cup run (ironically, a bad business decision too) and he placed his own sense of celebrity and self-importance above everything else. But, some of his ideas were sound, such as those you mention above and investing in youth. I can't think of many more though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 15 May, 2011 Share Posted 15 May, 2011 So we go up and our income must meet our expenditure at least? We cannot rely on an income boost (not loan) from our owner? Yet one of the clubs coming down from the Premier can rely on the income from the parachute payments? Unfair restraint of trade? In principle I think football needs something to make it balance it's books but it has to be from a level playing field! This. It's a bit like Mawhinney's stupid proposal to have a salary cap = how the feck does that work if it doesn't apply to the top division? Same with this from what I can see - you'd have all kinds of ridiculous scenarios affecting promoted and relegated teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 15 May, 2011 Share Posted 15 May, 2011 He neglected the importance of fans, ST Info? he ignored the opportunity to build on the momentum of a great season and FA Cup run (ironically, a bad business decision too) We wait and see and he placed his own sense of celebrity and self-importance above everything else. Caption Comp anyone? But, some of his ideas were sound, such as those you mention above and investing in youth. Hmm Staplewood investment Jack Stephens I can't think of many more though. Just viewing from a step back for a change that's all 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 17 May, 2011 Share Posted 17 May, 2011 Leveraged buy outs - can anyone explain to me how it's possible for someone to borrow loads of money to buy a club and manage to make the club itself pay the interest on the loan? Isn't that getting the club to buy itself while ownership magically transfers itself to someone who had possibly paid nothing? This "clever" financial stuff is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 17 May, 2011 Share Posted 17 May, 2011 OK so for example, a foreign based owner picks up a local football club in whatever league in a country not currently covered. Signs Messi for 200 mil including wages and lends him to Saints. Just saying the problem is that lawyers and accountants are always creative when rules are written down. More helpful would be to tighten up the rules on Admin. Any Director of a Club entering Admin is banned from any employment in football for a minimum of 10 years and from holding any Directorship in UK for a minimum of 3 years. All Football Club Directors must sign personal guarantees up to 20% of the net debt of a football club. Administration is a 15 point penalty in year one and a 5 point penalty in year two. Players contracts are automatically halved in remuneration in the event of relegation. Clubs retain the right to withdraw remuneration from players refusing to play. Whole raft of other routes to go down but there is ONE common denominator in all financial mismanagement in football. It is ALWAYS the fans that suffer, NEVER the Directors. Make THEM liable and you will not need these rules Bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 17 May, 2011 Share Posted 17 May, 2011 Leveraged buy outs - can anyone explain to me how it's possible for someone to borrow loads of money to buy a club and manage to make the club itself pay the interest on the loan? Isn't that getting the club to buy itself while ownership magically transfers itself to someone who had possibly paid nothing? This "clever" financial stuff is beyond me. You seem to have explained it pretty well. The person making the loan is only interested in getting their money back with interest, and the "owner" can cover the cost of that interest using the club's profits, as well as getting some of the club's profit to themselves. As long as the costs aren't passed on to the fans in terms of a depleted squad or higher prices, fans usually don't care either. It's only going to be a problem if the club's moneymaking suddenly stops paying off the loans, which with global sales for the top Prem sides won't happen for as long as they stay high profile. I'd say Liverpool got very close to falling off the global merchandising radar this season though, but it'll take a couple of seasons of utter anonymity before loads of kids in Vietnam or wherever temporarily turn into Man City fans instead of Liverpool or Arsenal ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 17 May, 2011 Share Posted 17 May, 2011 This. It's a bit like Mawhinney's stupid proposal to have a salary cap = how the feck does that work if it doesn't apply to the top division? Same with this from what I can see - you'd have all kinds of ridiculous scenarios affecting promoted and relegated teams I think it's viable. Teams moving in and out of the Prem would have to adjust salaries appropriately (and also presumably there would be similar situations in other promotion and relegation scenarios under cap rules for each division) - but that's not sufficient reason to dispense with the idea altogether. There are always going to be huge resources of players who aren't at the very top level and wages will naturally find their own level - historically nPC players who want more money aren't that likely to go abroad, which is what the top Prem players would immediately do if salary capped - the Championship "brand" won't be affected by the standard of player much, as it's not sold as being full of the best in the world. The Prem in contrast would lose out on millions of pounds in tv deals if it went back to the mostly English makeup it had prior to 1994, which is a logical conclusion of not paying top whack to the top players. The biggest problem with implementing salary caps are making them work under EU legislation and how you deal with expensive player contracts in the event of relegation - which could probably be addressed by loaning players out in order to meet the cap. The bigger picture (below the Prem) is that fair competition and ensuring clubs operate within their means are beneficial to football generally, and under the existing Prem set up the rich get richer and everyone else is a bystander. The MLS model of shared ownership and salary capping (with exceptions) works, as it's exciting and competitive, and even aids the US national side - but they don't usually match up well in Supercopa games against Mexican sides who can splash the cash through the whole team. That's not a concern in the Football League, but it would be for Prem teams in Europe. Of course, as Saints are apparently very wealthy, it wouldn't suit us in the short term either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 Bump With a good article by the Wolves Chairman http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/wolverhampton-wanderers/8522258/Wolves-chairman-Steve-Morgan-calls-for-salary-cap-as-Premier-League-debt-crisis-grows.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Interesting. I mentioned in another thread last night reading an article in a Turin newspaper on finances in Italian football. Equally in the s**t and talk of a salary cap there too. Apart from the top games crowds are significantly lower here, for all the the talk about the Ultra nutters in the Curva Nord (or wherever). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 As Stevegrant Administrator said the other day, any attempt at a financial level playing field would be very complex as it means defining income and expenditure. So is a worthwhile objective achievable if the obstacles are simply too great? A club that brings on a Walcott or a Bale gets a massive cash boost, as do clubs getting parachute payments, which are virtually designed to be unfair to the rest of the Championship clubs. All seems to point to the salary cap - not a cap per player but a cap per club - as being the most transparent means of putting all clubs on a level playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 It doesnt really help a lot if clubs are still allowed to sign players on 90k a week on loan and pay a fraction of the wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 As Stevegrant Administrator said the other day, any attempt at a financial level playing field would be very complex as it means defining income and expenditure. So is a worthwhile objective achievable if the obstacles are simply too great? A club that brings on a Walcott or a Bale gets a massive cash boost, as do clubs getting parachute payments, which are virtually designed to be unfair to the rest of the Championship clubs. All seems to point to the salary cap - not a cap per player but a cap per club - as being the most transparent means of putting all clubs on a level playing field. The logic is a no brainer. The reality though means simply that unless they make a really stupid mistake, the clubs that are in the CL earn at least 60mil a year more than any other club in the PL. Then no matter who comes along in any other club you would never stand a chance of breaking into that group as your salary limit would be a percentage of revenue some 40 mil less than the big 4. You can argue for bringing the youth through, but again anyone of any potential would simply get hoovered up. If the PL introduced salary caps but Spain did not - PL loses it's global appeal as t he best players end up in Spain (or Italy or France) The Ideal is right but the implementation has so many pitfalls and get arounds. However if you look at the US and their systems in MLS & NFL they have a share around system. But they also don't have the breadth of clubs in a pyramid, or the tribal support and promotion/relegation like we do. Tightening up the punishments for Clubs & Directors and waiting for UEFA rules to come in would be the best starting point. It must be a pan-European process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_John Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 I just pleased we got out of League 1, from this report on the Oldham o/s during the season it suggests that they were going to take a vote to introduce the 60% rule for League 1 clubs similar to the one that which exists already in L2. http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/page/NewsUpdate/0,,10337~2199903,00.html "League One clubs showed an appetite to adopt a salary cost management protocol similar to the one that League Two clubs have operated for the past few seasons. "They are keen to limit the amount clubs are able to pay in wages as a percentage of a club's income .... Clubs in League Two are currently limited to paying 60-per-cent of their income on wages, though the finer detail of a scheme for League One clubs has yet to be discussed. imo I think this would have made the 5yr plan very difficult, if not impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 19 May, 2011 Author Share Posted 19 May, 2011 I just pleased we got out of League 1, from this report on the Oldham o/s during the season it suggests that they were going to take a vote to introduce the 60% rule for League 1 clubs similar to the one that which exists already in L2. http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/page/NewsUpdate/0,,10337~2199903,00.html League One clubs showed an appetite to adopt a salary cost management protocol similar to the one that League Two clubs have operated for the past few seasons. "They are keen to limit the amount clubs are able to pay in wages as a percentage of a club's income .... Clubs in League Two are currently limited to paying 60-per-cent of their income on wages, though the finer detail of a scheme for League One clubs has yet to be discussed. imo I think this would have made the 5yr plan very difficult, if not impossible. I'm not so sure - the system in League Two made allowances for direct contributions from club owners, hence why Notts County were able to sign the likes of Kasper Schmeichel, Lee Hughes and Johnnie Jackson in that division. The thing that was a bit odd was that the Football League didn't take a closer look at the situation when the Munto Finance thing all started to unravel, as in the end that money didn't actually exist so they massively exceeded the salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 I assume that the results from any discussions by the Chairman will be brought in starting in two or three years from now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 If I was Cortese, I'd tell the rest of the league that we run our club how we want. As long as we don't go into administration we can do what we want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntingdon Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 I just pleased we got out of League 1, from this report on the Oldham o/s during the season it suggests that they were going to take a vote to introduce the 60% rule for League 1 clubs similar to the one that which exists already in L2. http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/page/NewsUpdate/0,,10337~2199903,00.html imo I think this would have made the 5yr plan very difficult, if not impossible. I think it would have made it difficult to build a team ready for NPC football, but promotion would have still been expected from L1. Our gates and ultimate income would have been so much greater than most L1 clubs, that 60% of our income would have still given us the largest budgets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now