G STAR RAM Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 31 minutes ago, Archied said: Jeez, you think it’s working ? even the efl can’t fathom how it works , they think they do then along comes I’ve spunked it Gibson and sues them for not knowing , you can then bet Derby and a few others will do the same if they please Gibson , they are like the bloke in the sketch on the fast show coming up with answers that are picked apart then moving to the next one to be pulled apart, but hey if you think it’s all good then fine Derby are just hypocrites I dont see that Derby being hypocrites and thinking FFP not working have to be mutually exclusive. How does having a £20m wage cap help teams like Burton that could be in this division? Basically we just dont want teams with more money than us to be able to spend it on wages now our boom or bust looks like biting us on the arse. If you think Mel is doing it because he is genuinely bothered about other clubs though that is fine too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JfR Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 I can't help but wonder if this might be more aimed at showing other teams up than a legitimate proposal, a bit of a "put up or shut up" to the clubs criticising Derby. If you look at the wage bills for last season 17 of the teams had a wage bill over £20m, 9 having a wage bill over double that amount and of the 7 teams lower than £20m, 4 were within £1m of the proposed limit and only one had a bill lower than £15m. Unless a lot has changed since then, it would be extremely unlikely for this proposal to pass, and I'm sure if we've proposed this that we know that as well. Plus, as others have said, we ourselves are very unlikely to have a wage bill less than £20m, especially with Rooney's wages and even with the reductions on it with players leaving. Maybe it just serves to say to the other clubs "if you're serious about making things fair and sustainable than do something about it" whilst proposing a way to do that that they would never likely support. I can't really understand why we would otherwise sincerely propose this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 37 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: I dont see that Derby being hypocrites and thinking FFP not working have to be mutually exclusive. How does having a £20m wage cap help teams like Burton that could be in this division? Basically we just dont want teams with more money than us to be able to spend it on wages now our boom or bust looks like biting us on the arse. If you think Mel is doing it because he is genuinely bothered about other clubs though that is fine too. Ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Hughes Hair Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 This story points to the inherent weakness of the EFL. It is a collective of 72 voices that will each have different agendas of which I'd argue precisely zero have the interests of the whole at heart. This is why you have the EFL bringing charges against one team at the behest of another. The EFL recently vetoed the findings of it's own investigation into it's own structure, rejecting the replacement of six directors who are currently picked from Championship, L1 and L2 with six independent directors. At the same time they also found that they couldn't have done anymore in the Bury debacle earlier this season. Professional and impartial? I'll let you decide. I'd argue that even the 'Brands and Values' listed on the EFL website reflect an organisation trapped in a paralysis of it's own making; 'The EFL delivers against the aspirations of every supporter, club, player and stakeholder to excel within the game.' Really? Is that even possible to even decipher into an action plan? If the Daily Fail spin is true, Derby have only acted in their own best interests in trying to limit the commercial advantage of those teams in receipt of parachute payments while not advancing the cause of teams with smaller revenues than us. It might be viewed as hypocrisy by some but the reality is we're just looking out for our own interests just like the other 71 members will be doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BathRam72 Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 2 hours ago, Tyler Durden said: That's the same syndrome though, why would be look to be on your best behaviour before you have been found of doing any wrongdoing Because it would be belts and braces. Be seen to be doing something and complying and if we do get a punishment it would or should be reduced. I am not saying this is what we ARE doing but it can't hurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yani P Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 It will never work.. Just a terrible idea with the way modern football is.. Relegated prem clubs wouldn't stand for it and the championship would become a waste ground of mediocre talent.. These things never work if they are done unilaterally it would be a race to the bottom. The biggest issue would be any young talent would be gone on a flash either to a Prem side taking a punt or overseas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmo’s left foot Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 I’d suggest a maximum wage, and also a simple formula where wage budget cannot exceed 75% of trading turnover. Transfer fees are then not included in turnover. It should be made law, this making it illegal for a football club to budget to run at a loss. If a club is relegated, then no parachute payments, the same rules apply, so a contract Clause kicks in for every player, reducing their wage accordingly. This is how any other business works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombo Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 On 29/02/2020 at 13:18, CWC1983 said: Sheffield United there with the 5th lowest average wages and look at them now. A salary cap does not equal a poor Championship. It makes a more honest Championship. The answer is less Jacob Butterfields and more Max Birds. If we're stuck in this league, we might as well be doing it on the cheap. The time for spending money is if we get up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkFruitsRam7 Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 a) Why should it be the players that take the hit? b) Why are we doing this after years of spending poo tonnes on player wages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 24 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said: a) Why should it be the players that take the hit? b) Why are we doing this after years of spending poo tonnes on player wages? A. Because it’s just not affordable on championship income b. ? precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 On 29/02/2020 at 12:27, BathRam72 said: I might have dreamt this, but wasnt part of the potential punishment decided against whether a club is seen to be doing something to combat FFP. Maybe this is Derby doing something positive to get the potential punishment reduced One of the known aggravating/mitigating factors is a trend in spending. It hasn't been disclosed if that is only up to the end of the period in question though. Birmingham were punished for ramping up spend in the 17/18 season. Derby's 'spend' not only ramped up in 17/18, but has continued to (due to releasing players for a big loss). Fortunately, we should be able to provide evidence of getting it under control by letting high earners leave (reducing costs), and exploring ways of boosting revenue (sponsors, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raich Carter Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 On 29/02/2020 at 11:19, G STAR RAM said: This stinks of hypocrisy for me. As much as I agree with the idea, we were not interested when we were trying to buy our way out of the division but now that has failed we want a salary cap?! Nothing to do with us what other teams are spending as long as they are not breaking rules Yes, now that we’ve failed to buy our way out of it and we have an excellent academy (i.e. ahead of most of the others with years of talent in the pipeline) we want the rules changed to suit us. That is business. So many of the big players do exactly that in the real world why wouldn’t we. They drive policy to suit their needs. Google, Apple, etc they do it all the time. Why on earth wouldn’t you want the rules changed to suit our strengths? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 15 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: One of the known aggravating/mitigating factors is a trend in spending. It hasn't been disclosed if that is only up to the end of the period in question though. Birmingham were punished for ramping up spend in the 17/18 season. Derby's 'spend' not only ramped up in 17/18, but has continued to (due to releasing players for a big loss). Fortunately, we should be able to provide evidence of getting it under control by letting high earners leave (reducing costs), and exploring ways of boosting revenue (sponsors, etc) We should be applauding the club for trying to right our previous wrongs. I am certain if he had his time again, Mel Morris would not have spent as he did in the early days, or let some of the contract clauses we currently have be included as they are still costing us money. Yes, we made mistakes, but at least it appears to me that we are trying to put them right. It's a mess and will take a long time to sort out. Sorry, think that I have quoted the wrong post as I am answering you @DarkFruitsRam7, rather than Ghost of Clough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 On 29/02/2020 at 14:48, Simmo’s left foot said: I’d suggest a maximum wage, and also a simple formula where wage budget cannot exceed 75% of trading turnover. Transfer fees are then not included in turnover. It should be made law, this making it illegal for a football club to budget to run at a loss. If a club is relegated, then no parachute payments, the same rules apply, so a contract Clause kicks in for every player, reducing their wage accordingly. This is how any other business works! I understand what you are saying but the dodges would still be there. Say a wealthy chairman decides one of his other companies is going to sponsor the ground for silly money thus inflating commercial revenue unreasonably ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 16 minutes ago, Raich Van Carter said: Yes, now that we’ve failed to buy our way out of it and we have an excellent academy (i.e. ahead of most of the others with years of talent in the pipeline) we want the rules changed to suit us. That is business. So many of the big players do exactly that in the real world why wouldn’t we. They drive policy to suit their needs. Google, Apple, etc they do it all the time. Why on earth wouldn’t you want the rules changed to suit our strengths? Because although I am a Derby fan, I also recognise the fact that there are another 91 teams in the football league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 On 29/02/2020 at 13:18, CWC1983 said: That's a bit misleading. In 18/19, QPR made a very modest profit (£117k) thanks to parachute payments of roughly £17m. They spent £18.9m on wages, using 33 different players and naming 9 other players in the matchday squad. The 33 players average at £10,986, but drops to £8,632 if you include all players named in matchday squads. There's still 80 other employees at the club who haven't been accounted for, but are part of the £18.9m wages. Based on his logic, they could have played 19 extra academy players, taking the average to £7000k and meeting that 'breakeven' point. What he actually means is reduce wages by £6m. A squad of 18 on an average of £13,800 pw would reach this target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkFruitsRam7 Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 28 minutes ago, angieram said: We should be applauding the club for trying to right our previous wrongs. I am certain if he had his time again, Mel Morris would not have spent as he did in the early days, or let some of the contract clauses we currently have be included as they are still costing us money. Yes, we made mistakes, but at least it appears to me that we are trying to put them right. It's a mess and will take a long time to sort out. Sorry, think that I have quoted the wrong post as I am answering you @DarkFruitsRam7, rather than Ghost of Clough. I would understand if he had come out and said that our past spending was not only wrong in a practical sense, but also in some moral sense. Yet the only indication I've got from his interviews is that we went for it and it didn't work, meaning that we have to cut down on our spending in order to be sustainable. Our cutbacks seem to be purely practical. To propose this (if he has indeed proposed it) after we've tried and failed to spend big, without some sort of moral renunciation of our previous actions, just comes across as a bit hypocritical and as a desperate attempt to stop others from spending the money they have at their disposal. I think he's bang on with his attacks on the EFL TV deal. If Pride Park was genuinely valued by an independent valuer, then I'm with him on that front too. This, however, just seems bizarre. Over time, I might just say 'I don't care' and applaud it if it helps our football club, as @Raich Van Carter is doing. I have said in the past that I couldn't care less about what other teams think of us. But my initial reaction is that Morris hasn't got a leg to stand on if we're talking about what is right and proper on this front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, angieram said: We should be applauding the club for trying to right our previous wrongs. I am certain if he had his time again, Mel Morris would not have spent as he did in the early days, or let some of the contract clauses we currently have be included as they are still costing us money. Yes, we made mistakes, but at least it appears to me that we are trying to put them right. It's a mess and will take a long time to sort out. Sorry, think that I have quoted the wrong post as I am answering you @DarkFruitsRam7, rather than Ghost of Clough. I agree with this. As a general reply to the thread, I don't think it's correct to call it hypocritical, I think it should be seen as looking at it from a position of experience and not wanting the same mistakes to be made in the future. We've been very lucky that we've had Mel who has been prepared to fund this for as long as he has, but it has become somewhat of a millstone around our necks for at least the past few seasons with a lot of players being obviously very well paid and not actually getting much/any time on the pitch. The previous two seasons to this one seemed to be the peak, yes we loaned some out, but we would quite likely have been paying a portion of their wages. Other clubs haven't been and won't be as lucky with that funding and if football carries on the way it is and costs keep spiralling out of control then there will be more club casualties yet. Yes, we have spent big wages. This has mainly been to try and keep up with the parachute payment receiving clubs who can afford to blow everyone else out of the water with wages and stockpile all of the best players at this level with their extra cash, which we have seen doesn't actually tend to work, yet still happens every single year without fail. We have obviously been trying to get that wage bill down for the past couple of years, but it can't happen overnight as once a player is signed that is pretty much that until the end of their contract, unless you can get someone else to take that contract on, or you can agree a pay off somewhere in the middle. I don't agree with a specific wage cap per player, like the £20k a week example, I think that's too restrictive, I don't believe it would encourage an open Championship market as a player earning their £20k has very little incentive to shake up their whole home life to move potentially half way across the country to another club operating to the same parameters. An overall wage cap that allows for some cheaper players and some more expensive players I think would be the best option if we were to go down the wage cap route, ie. it is up to each club how they choose to allocate their wage bill amongst their playing staff, so there would be the opportunity for players to move in the same division and earn more if they are seen as an important buy for a particular club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 2 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said: a) Why should it be the players that take the hit? b) Why are we doing this after years of spending poo tonnes on player wages? Because the players are paid crazy money (I don’t blame by the way. In their position I’m sure there aren’t many of us who would say “nah. That’s too much”). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkFruitsRam7 Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 11 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: Because the players are paid crazy money (I don’t blame by the way. In their position I’m sure there aren’t many of us who would say “nah. That’s too much”). That's capitalism. Regardless, isn't the focus of the argument on sustainability for football clubs, rather than the moral issues associated with extortionate wages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.