Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

Ben Robinson Burton Owner was on 5live tonight. Vale voted along with the other 23 clubs to pay for the testing of all L2 players that are involved in the play offs out of their EFL share.

Then he went on to discuss a First Team budget salary cap that will be around £1.25mil for L2 and around £2.25 - £2.5mil for L1. Clubs are debating proposals and if they do agree it will prob be in force for Season 21/22.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don’t see any need for the introduction of a salary cap. 

If club owners are so worried about their expenditure, then they should simply not pay what agents (and ultimately the players) are demanding. Just pay what you as a club can afford.

You don’t need a salary cap to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RailwayRowdy said:

I personally don’t see any need for the introduction of a salary cap. 

If club owners are so worried about their expenditure, then they should simply not pay what agents (and ultimately the players) are demanding. Just pay what you as a club can afford.

You don’t need a salary cap to do that. 

I don’t think that’s the issue... it’s to stop situations like:

- Salford buying success

- Colchester where the owner has over extended himself and paid £4m in wages (based on last accounts) and now can’t afford to carry on.

- Bury who clearly couldn’t afford their mega wages but gambled on promotion saving them.

Football club owners (thankfully not our) have proven themselves over and over again as not capable of resisting that big push that will pay off eventually.

Salary cap is a very sensible move if you ask me.

Interestingly, they have them in Australian sport and the methods teams use to get round them make the front pages about once a year.

Watch out for Tom Elliot at Salford getting a job at hotel football for 2 hours a fortnight on days where there is a home game doing meet and greets for £100k a year.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, butt lane vale fan said:

 

Ben Robinson Burton Owner was on 5live tonight. Vale voted along with the other 23 clubs to pay for the testing of all L2 players that are involved in the play offs out of their EFL share.

Then he went on to discuss a First Team budget salary cap that will be around £1.25mil for L2 and around £2.25 - £2.5mil for L1. Clubs are debating proposals and if they do agree it will prob be in force for Season 21/22.

 

 

In an ideal world the ‘few weeks wage‘ fine that Hudson Odi gets from Chelsea would be gifted to the EFL to pay for playoff testing! 

But that would be far too good a solution so it won’t happen! 😂
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RailwayRowdy said:

I personally don’t see any need for the introduction of a salary cap. 

If club owners are so worried about their expenditure, then they should simply not pay what agents (and ultimately the players) are demanding. Just pay what you as a club can afford.

You don’t need a salary cap to do that. 

Stop being so bloody sensible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind Salford and the like buying success but something does have to be done to stop bad owners spending money they don't have and driving a long standing club out of business, as with Bury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Iron Curtain said:

I don’t think that’s the issue... it’s to stop situations like:

- Salford buying success

- Colchester where the owner has over extended himself and paid £4m in wages (based on last accounts) and now can’t afford to carry on.

- Bury who clearly couldn’t afford their mega wages but gambled on promotion saving them.

Football club owners (thankfully not our) have proven themselves over and over again as not capable of resisting that big push that will pay off eventually.

Salary cap is a very sensible move if you ask me.

Interestingly, they have them in Australian sport and the methods teams use to get round them make the front pages about once a year.

Watch out for Tom Elliot at Salford getting a job at hotel football for 2 hours a fortnight on days where there is a home game doing meet and greets for £100k a year.

^ This is the reason why a salary cap is being discussed. It’s nothing to do with players or agents demands.  Our league is so far removed from the top level in that regard, players and agents just don’t have that power because the lower leagues are not awash with money. 

Edited by PV1973

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the league should appoint the managers and tell them who to pick and where to play them as well. 🙄

I have no sympathy for clubs who over extend themselves and fall on hard times and it's up to each individual club and its fans to ensure they stay within there means.

Having clubs like Salford makes for a great league, clubs have a go and get up, some miss out but it's what creates the footballing cycles we see where clubs have periods of success and then fall away again...

Terrible idea.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure about the salary cap but it also has its merits. 

Usually the bigger clubs generally with better crowds can attract the big guns 

Plymouth, Danny Mayor

Swindon, Eoin Doyle

Bradford, James Vaughan ( though he did very little )

You have to live within your means and be sensible about things. 

Salford and their like is to the detriment of the game because there is no way players like Towell, Wilson and Rooney would ever consider such a small club without the silly money dangling in front of them. 

Luckily we have savvy people running our club who will look at the bigger picture not boom and bust 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we could,only,spend a defined % of our revenue anyway.If the cap is the same for everyone it represents more of a level playing field and therefore make the leagues more competitive.Any extra revenue,not used for salaries,could be used for things like ground maintenance and improvements.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Howjy04 said:

£10 a week during the season,£5 a week in the off season.Problem solved for fruit picking aswell.

They do that anyway. They get paid a basic weekly wage. When they play they get their appearance, goal, clean sheet, league position bonuses. So no games = no extra money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't another part of the proposal a squad of twenty with eight of them being academy graduates?

I can't see how they could implement that unless there's a transition process.

For instance, we already have twelve signed up of which only two (Gibbons and Campbell-Gordon) are youth team graduates.

Using that logic we'd only be able to offer contracts to two out of Cullen, Amoo, Montano, Brisley, Conlon etc. Then we'd have to find six youth team graduates (Smith is one) to offer contracts to as well.

I do personally think salary caps and squad limits sound like good long-term solutions (better than B teams anyhow) but you can't just drop in a sudden, dramatic change - there has to be a gradual movement to it over some years surely?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Howjy04 said:

I thought we could,only,spend a defined % of our revenue anyway.If the cap is the same for everyone it represents more of a level playing field and therefore make the leagues more competitive.Any extra revenue,not used for salaries,could be used for things like ground maintenance and improvements.

That's true Howj, but then there are a load of arguments about what constitutes revenue... Humans have a clever way of weaselling around rules.

I agree that Salary cap has pros and cons, but at least its a clear measure of what a team can spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't another part of the proposal a squad of twenty with eight of them being academy graduates?
I can't see how they could implement that unless there's a transition process.
For instance, we already have twelve signed up of which only two (Gibbons and Campbell-Gordon) are youth team graduates.
Using that logic we'd only be able to offer contracts to two out of Cullen, Amoo, Montano, Brisley, Conlon etc. Then we'd have to find six youth team graduates (Smith is one) to offer contracts to as well.
I do personally think salary caps and squad limits sound like good long-term solutions (better than B teams anyhow) but you can't just drop in a sudden, dramatic change - there has to be a gradual movement to it over some years surely?
 
I read it as 20 plus 8 from academy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's true Howj, but then there are a load of arguments about what constitutes revenue... Humans have a clever way of weaselling around rules.
I agree that Salary cap has pros and cons, but at least its a clear measure of what a team can spend.
If this comes in you will start to see players relatives with 100k a year admin jobs at clubs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t think that’s the issue... it’s to stop situations like:
- Salford buying success
- Colchester where the owner has over extended himself and paid £4m in wages (based on last accounts) and now can’t afford to carry on.
- Bury who clearly couldn’t afford their mega wages but gambled on promotion saving them.
Football club owners (thankfully not our) have proven themselves over and over again as not capable of resisting that big push that will pay off eventually.
Salary cap is a very sensible move if you ask me.
Interestingly, they have them in Australian sport and the methods teams use to get round them make the front pages about once a year.
Watch out for Tom Elliot at Salford getting a job at hotel football for 2 hours a fortnight on days where there is a home game doing meet and greets for £100k a year.
It needs be implemented from the top down to be fair. Would then keep clubs stabalised and then would open up fairer competition between the leagues. Rather than how wealthy a clubs owner is for example, Man City or previously Chelsea etc. Or Stoke with Bet365 injecting cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RailwayRowdy said:

I personally don’t see any need for the introduction of a salary cap. 

If club owners are so worried about their expenditure, then they should simply not pay what agents (and ultimately the players) are demanding. Just pay what you as a club can afford.

You don’t need a salary cap to do that. 

The highlighted sentence above is whimsical thinking. Surely it has become clear that owners are doing the exact opposite, and will continue to do so until it is legally curtailed?

Clubs overspend beyond their revenue (The Championship, on average, spends 108% of club's revenue on wages, before any additional expenditure) in a gamble to win promotion, hoping the financial benefits of doing so offset any losses in the process. If losses are incurred, the owner has to benevolently/maliciously fund the gap, either through shares or directors loans. This is all well and good until the owner takes flak or gets bored, in which case they can just put the club into administration, calling in the millions of pounds of debt is has incurred to its directors, unable to pay it back.

In case you hadn't clicked, this is Port Vale 2013-2019. Norman overspent, without setting up sustainable revenue streams to pay for it, and by the end of his tenure the club was insolvent, losing circa 200k a month, having to be plugged by Big Norm's wallet. He made some stupid decisions, we kicked off, he decided he'd had enough, and if we hadn't been blessed enough to be in a position where Carol Shanahan gave a damn about Burslem, to the extent where she'd grossly overpay the club's market value to save us, we wouldn't exist right now (possibly as a phoenix club in Tier 9).

This model is broken. We've seen Bury go to the wall, we're on the verge of seeing Macclesfield do the same. Southend are not doing well. The entire financial model, which rewards short-term fiscal gambling at the expense of sustainability, simply cannot continue in its present form (even without the challenges of COVID).

A salary cap is a good idea but will require a lot of thinking; its pointless if not enforced to the Championship, as unless the manager is a miracle worker, it will be impossible to survive the step from League 1 to Championship if you go from tight wage expenditure to the financial wild west of the second tier. Also, the National League will have to be consulted; teams like Eastleigh, Fylde etc can't arrive with wage budgets in excess £1.25m and then have to cut it AFTER promotion.

Futhermore, a lot of clubs will deviously use bonuses, both financial and tangible, in order to work around the wage cap.

However, these are conversations we need to be having. Believing that clubs just need to 'pay what they can afford' with no legislation to prevent them from doing so if a dodgy owner fancies gambling 150 years of history on the off-chance his expensive, financially unsubstantiated side can sh!thouse promotion, is the reason why clubs are in financial disarray up and down the country.

If a team is sensible and doesn't pay the lucrative demands of the players/agents, there's a chairman daft/dodgy enough up the motorway who will, as there's nothing stopping them. If it costs the club, fine, he'll plug the gap, providing they get thet promotion, and he can make his money back. If they don't, that's the clubs problem. Deal with it. Fans crying outside the gates.

Parachute payments need to be re-thought too.

There is a more philosophical/moral debate at hand; is football supposed to be designed with a level playing field (ala the NFL), where teams cannot financially bully their opponents to achieve promotion, and success is therefore predicated on good management, or do we want to have a system where plucky teams can rise through the ranks at the behest of a local man done good as chairman/wealthy benefactor? Its all down to personal preference, and I think your answer to this question will guide how you feel about salary caps.

£1.25m is too low, and 8 academy products is very fanciful (4 would be achievable, with financial incentives for every player registered over 4), but in my view we have to sit down and have these discussions.

 

Edited by Joe B
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy