The money that is in the game, mostly created by the Premier League & Sky is more than enough to make the game work and should be a positive.
The ridiculous sums should mean cheaper tickets for us, better pitches at grass roots, money left over for the community.
The reason none of the above exists is because of the greed for glory of the owners.
A salary cap at £100k/week would leave the clubs at the top with huge profits. This would mean that money could be much more evenly distributed. Owners wouldn't have to put their own cash in. And the huge debts of the clubs could be repaid.
Sounds great doesn't it, and you would think these owners that are struggling so much financially they are prepared to destroy football would grab a salary cap with both hands. The only losers are the players, who let's be honest will happily play the game for £100k/week if the choice is that or retirement.
Except the owners at the top would lose their competitive advantage, and their decisions, appointments, signings would have be spot on. They don't want to risk being shown up for the clueless idiots they are.
Now we all know it's not as straight forward as above, and black markets, china, and others issues would need resolving. But currently if those 12 clubs increased their revenue to £10Billion, they would just spend £12Billion and the problem would be even worse not better. They are too desperate to beat each other to the top players.
There's already enough money in the game to give the top players a crazy wage of £5million/year which is enough. Any extra money should be directed at improving the sport, and even moving as much viewing back to terrestrial as possible.
As a final point, I do not blame the players for the money they earn for one second. It's not their job to turn down the offers. And the only reason Man City offer silly money is because if they don't the other 11 clubs already have. And you can replace City with any club on the list.
The fact that Real Madrid will still be looking to sign Mbappe, Haaland, Alaba proves that no income will be enough. There is no stopping these idiots
Bored of hearing that revenues need fixing
posted on 22/4/21
comment by Macca: Emily Bishop's love child (U8194)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
If you could salary cap the owners as well as the players and managers and create a maximum ceiling transfer fee of say 70 million Euros then it would be a much more level playing field and significantly reduce the chances of clubs going bankrupt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but then you'd have the "big" sides having to actually compete for success. A thoroughly outrageous suggestion.
posted on 22/4/21
comment by VOF - Its all about believing .... (U17124)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Macca: Emily Bishop's love child (U8194)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
If you could salary cap the owners as well as the players and managers and create a maximum ceiling transfer fee of say 70 million Euros then it would be a much more level playing field and significantly reduce the chances of clubs going bankrupt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but then you'd have the "big" sides having to actually compete for success. A thoroughly outrageous suggestion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's the true biggest hurdle in the way of actually reducing the wages.
That's the irony. These owners complaining most about the finances are the very same people refusing to allow an adjustment of players wages because they would rather see the clubs go bust than lose their competitive advantage.
Many other hurdles in the way don't get me wrong. But these idiots are by far the biggest
posted on 22/4/21
Any changes have to be global, so no club/team can gain an unfair advantage. No point enforcing caps/changes in England/Europe etc ... if a club anywhere else can just tempt players with a bigger ransom. Maybe a salary budget per squad, the registered and declared squad of X number of players maybe? So you can have a Messi/Ronaldo type taking 25% of your budget, but the other 75% needs to be spread across the rest. Just me thinking out loud, i'm sure it's a concept with big holes in it ...
posted on 22/4/21
I know most will be looking forward to getting back in stadiums, but now people are use to it maybe they should stay away, at least until football realizes somethings wrong!..
And if people could go without TV they could say I'm out of here until the prices are a little more affordable!..
That way both sides of the grab can see enough is enough!..
"Any changes have to be global, so no club/team can gain an unfair advantage."
That's an odd one, because German football is much cheaper than English, and I think Sky and co are as well!..
posted on 22/4/21
comment by VOF - Its all about believing .... (U17124)
posted 3 minutes ago
Any changes have to be global, so no club/team can gain an unfair advantage. No point enforcing caps/changes in England/Europe etc ... if a club anywhere else can just tempt players with a bigger ransom. Maybe a salary budget per squad, the registered and declared squad of X number of players maybe? So you can have a Messi/Ronaldo type taking 25% of your budget, but the other 75% needs to be spread across the rest. Just me thinking out loud, i'm sure it's a concept with big holes in it ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Huge holes in it!
But just because a few lads can't solve all the issues on a Thursday morning on JA606 doesn't mean it can't be resolved.
Give me a budget of a few million and 12 months and I might be able to get pretty close though.
One such hole is to make sure that the parents of players don't end up being hired as admin staff for £25k/week. I know rugby league has a reputation for finding ways round the salary cap. But like I said, give me a few million and I will see what I can come up with.
posted on 22/4/21
Never said it was perfect .......
Typed in between writing a guide at work ....
I was thinking along the lines of the RL model though.
posted on 22/4/21
Do you know what might be alternative idea?
This is a 30 second thought so don't be surprised if it doesn't work.
But think about it from the opposite angle. Why not put rules on borrowing. Ban borrowing from banks/lenders unless for specific exceptions (eg. ground improvements, unforeseen circumstances like a pandamic)
And if money is to be invested by owners it cannot be provided as a loan and cannot be returned.
Will clearly need a lot more thought but is an attempt to force clubs to restrict clubs ability to spend more on wages than they have coming in. And ensure owners cannot rack up debt against the club.
posted on 22/4/21
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 44 minutes ago
Do you know what might be alternative idea?
This is a 30 second thought so don't be surprised if it doesn't work.
But think about it from the opposite angle. Why not put rules on borrowing. Ban borrowing from banks/lenders unless for specific exceptions (eg. ground improvements, unforeseen circumstances like a pandamic)
And if money is to be invested by owners it cannot be provided as a loan and cannot be returned.
Will clearly need a lot more thought but is an attempt to force clubs to restrict clubs ability to spend more on wages than they have coming in. And ensure owners cannot rack up debt against the club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends. If you applied this only to one type of business (eg football clubs) and not other types of businesses then I would imagine it would be challenged as unfair pretty quickly.
Similarly, for the purpose of contract law, registered businesses are classed as a person, the same as you or I. If they want to ask the bank for a mortgage or a loan they have the same rights as you or I.
posted on 22/4/21
If reports are to be believed then Man U pushed ahead with this ESL plan even though Fergie voted against it but was outnumbered in the boardroom.
So what if the football authorities made it law than any boardroon decision about the clubs wage structure signings, takeover, breakaway league etc had to be voted for by every board member for it to be sanctioned and the boardroom had to include a supporters club rep that had a vote too which gives a little more insurance against crazy decisions being made.
A Spurs and Arsenal supporters rep I do not think would have voted to leave their original grounds if they were aware of the debt the club would be getting into.
Spurs debt is 1.1billion. What a Kamikaze decision to get that much into debt just to say they have a bigger capacity than Arsenal.
Even Man Utd's so called serviceable debt of 700million would not have had a unanimous boardroom vote to sanction the Glaziers takeover.
West Ham would not have got a fan rep to vote for leaving Upton Park for the soulless London Stadium.
I'm sure someone will find a hole in this idea but to me this would stop owners from betraying the fans for their own personal greed and ego.
posted on 22/4/21
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 44 minutes ago
Do you know what might be alternative idea?
This is a 30 second thought so don't be surprised if it doesn't work.
But think about it from the opposite angle. Why not put rules on borrowing. Ban borrowing from banks/lenders unless for specific exceptions (eg. ground improvements, unforeseen circumstances like a pandamic)
And if money is to be invested by owners it cannot be provided as a loan and cannot be returned.
Will clearly need a lot more thought but is an attempt to force clubs to restrict clubs ability to spend more on wages than they have coming in. And ensure owners cannot rack up debt against the club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends. If you applied this only to one type of business (eg football clubs) and not other types of businesses then I would imagine it would be challenged as unfair pretty quickly.
Similarly, for the purpose of contract law, registered businesses are classed as a person, the same as you or I. If they want to ask the bank for a mortgage or a loan they have the same rights as you or I.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously I don’t know the legal position and this would not be a new uk law. This would be implemented by a football organisation as rules to access the competition.