CornwallRam Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 And if the club dont compete or the investor gets bored and jumps ship, where does that then leave the smaller club, with a wage bill that they cant sustain, hence the reason why it is based upon turnover. But if you cap the wages based on turnover tha smaller clubs will just become uncompetitive and will see their turnover reduced further meaning they have an unsustainable wage bill and eventually fold because no-one will invest in a lost cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Of course we want to go up, but only when we are in a position to stay there. Plus, its not worth just throwing money to gamble to go up - everything had to be right from the finances to the squad There is no real value in going up and coming straight back down. Going up ill prepared can do a lot more harm than good. Hopefully we will be in a position over the coming season(s) where we have a strong financial footing for the club as well as a squad that is in a place to compete and stay there if we are promoted. All this is is trying to look at the whole scenario a little less emotionally more 3 dimensionally than saying "we want Premier League" - I do, but only if and when the club is setup to make the most of it No real value? So money has no value? Can't believe that people on here will be happy kicking our heels until 2014 when we can start to compete with Leicester and co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 But if you cap the wages based on turnover tha smaller clubs will just become uncompetitive and will see their turnover reduced further meaning they have an unsustainable wage bill and eventually fold because no-one will invest in a lost cause. Could be, but I see this the other way round, the clubs that normally live beyond their means are the bigger clubs who can afford to get into debt by borrowing against large assets and forecasted turnover. Caping the wage of the smaller clubs would therefore mean that they can compete on a more level playing field, look at the league now, and you dont really find the smaller clubs getting promoted without investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramjam Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I've not said I dont want to go up, all I've said is that the primary concern is to get the club in a good position financially and on the pitch...promotion should follow from that. But, promotion when the club is not ready can (not always) be dangerous. We suffered imensely from our Premier League season with heavy debts/contracts as well as a demoralised squad. Others have obviously done better...Stoke, Birmingham, West Brow etc. Back to the initial point, I think Glick is right for getting the foundations right first as opposed to just targetting promotion, its a sustainable promotion achieved in the right way, that is all. Now hoepfully we can kick on and chase promotion just as everyone wants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Ram Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I would suggest we will see the amendment taking effect from 2012 in line with the TV revenue cut to Football League clubs. I think the point most people are missing is that although the gap to the PL is undoubtedly increasing, it gives us a better chance v our rivals in the league we're in at present. The other issue to be resolved is how this impacts on clubs with the parachute payment dropping down from the PL, do they count the parachute payment as ring-fenced wage expenditure to help soften the blow? If so, this should be addressed at source with mandatory wage cuts built in to all PL players contracts otherwise you could say that clubs are being negligent in failing to budget for the worst case scenario of relegation. This is all going to get very complicated and legal I feel, however in my opinion it does want sorting out. I think the percentage of income that can be spent on players wages was initially tabled based on a calculation of income less other running costs, this is how I had it explained to me. The whole revamp of the finance could lead to a GSE swansong, give it all this season in the hope of promotion and increasing the value of our asset, otherwise sell on a club in a decent financial position to a local businessman that may be interested -----hmmmm,. any suggestions on this one;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimacked Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Any club coming down from the Prem would be forced to sell all their high earners or include wage reduction clauses which would make it harder to sign players if a team got promoted to the Prem from the championship. it would probably make the gap between the Premiership and the Championship even greater. Read part of that article and it mentioned Us, Burnley, Aresenal and Man U and Wolves as the only clubs in the top two divisions which were currently operating within these guidelines fo spending 60% of operating revenue or whatever it was. One thing the Americans have done is increase the amount we generate through all the commerical deals and stuff. We outcompete about 9 Premiership clubs in terms of how much we gneerate as well I think I read somewhere, despite having to put up with a miserable football team struggling against relegation. Hopefully we get something alot better next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Ram Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Any club coming down from the Prem would be forced to sell all their high earners or include wage reduction clauses which would make it harder to sign players if a team got promoted to the Prem from the championship. it would probably make the gap between the Premiership and the Championship even greater. Read part of that article and it mentioned Us, Burnley, Aresenal and Man U and Wolves as the only clubs in the top two divisions which were currently operating within these guidelines fo spending 60% of operating revenue or whatever it was. One thing the Americans have done is increase the amount we generate through all the commerical deals and stuff. We outcompete about 9 Premiership clubs in terms of how much we gneerate as well I think I read somewhere, despite having to put up with a miserable football team struggling against relegation. Hopefully we get something alot better next season. So how does this disadvantage an American investor wanting to increase the value of an asset currently sat in the Championship? I think this plays in to their hands a little to be fair, as a Derby or Burnley fan surely you have to think this is great news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramalama Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 a. There's about as much chance of clubs sticking to this as me getting off with Jennifer Aniston in the Dolphin tonight. b. It will give the clubs coming down another massive leg up because they'll be able to spend 2 or 3 times as much as the rest of us noneties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derby Loyal Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 She doesn't go in the Dolphin, tends to prefer the Tiger Bar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Ram Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Clubs expenditure is independently audited so player wages can be identified a) via club accounts and b) from HMRC records, it's really not that difficult to enforce. Watch out Jennifer Aniston is all I can say, is she in The Dolphin tonight..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotherhamRam Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share Posted June 9, 2011 Whatever happens, if we're planning to be in the Chapionship in 2014, then Glick has not played a blinder has he? Where has 2014 come from, if they vote on this now and the Donny Chairman on Radio 5 this afternoon wants it in sooner rather than later. He actually stated that there is a Championship player on £70k a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotherhamRam Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share Posted June 9, 2011 Must admit this thread has made me laugh! Who'd have thought tom glick is the saviour! A god! Not only do you guys have to wait another four years or so (because these changes wont happen overnight and will take a few seasons to come in, europes dont come into force until 2014 i think) but you will also have to hope that all the other clubs dont plan in advance when this rule finally gets passed because like i say if it gets passed all other clubs will have a good 2 years at least to sort it out. If they dont plan in advance then bang your in business, lol. If ive got this right; if this rule doesnt get passed, does mr glick go from saviour to complete and utter buffoon?! For one thing as you point out this is three seasons. That means we can go up twice and down once in this time. There is nothing to guarantee us stopping up if we go up. Not sure where this 2014 thing has come from but hey ho. Three yrs is a long time and £60 million is banded round as a figure when we went up. If this was case in our disastrous season where did it go and why did we still have a debt of approx £30million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotherhamRam Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share Posted June 9, 2011 Why does the cap have to be based on turnover? The rich clubs get better and the poor get worse - meaning the smaller clubs will constantly have to cut wages. Seems like a recipe for some pretty uncompetitive leagues in a few years. The richer you are, the more successful you will get and there will be no way for any other club to break the cycle. Also it will make the gap between division huge. Much better to have a cash cap - say £10m. That way each club that can afford that will be on a par with the others. The smaller ones will be prime targets for investers who will know that a modest amount of moeny pumped in will produce a side to compete with the best in the division. It works on ratio. If you in top 4 the cost of players wages are a lot higher becuase they have that extra ability, they have wider fan base to help fund these wages. the lower teams can get players on less money and wages and the fan base pays for this in revenue. In respect of say for example £10million the big clubs would lose their players abroad and you would then lose the big money in tv rights as the game over here would lose the appeal. Some clubs could not afford £10million and some some in this position would borrow to find this money and place them at risk just to compete with other clubs. The idea of this is not tocreate debt but to help reduce costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramalama Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 For one thing as you point out this is three seasons. That means we can go up twice and down once in this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/premier-league-wage-bill-hits-record-1-4bn-093415723.html Premier League clubs' spending on wages has increased to more than £1.4bn - more than two thirds of their total revenue. The salary bill among the 20 sides hit an all-time high, at 68% of their collective income of just over £2bn. While Manchester United 's £132m wage bill represented 46% of the club's revenue, benefactor-backed rivals Manchester City 's £133m accounted for 107%. Chelsea continued to top the league for spending on salaries, at £174m. It comes amid the gradual introduction of new Uefa financial fair play rules, designed to ensure clubs balance their books. But the results of the Deloitte Annual Review of Football Finance show many teams would be excluded from competing in European competitions based on their 2009/10 accounts. In the Championship , more than a third of clubs spent more on pay than they earned - with a majority of sides now in favour of similar financial fair play regulations. Alan Switzer, director in the sports business group at Deloitte, said: "Whilst revenues have held up well, a wages to revenue ratio of 88% is a cause for concern and will need to be addressed by Championship clubs. "Football League clubs have been put on notice about the need to rein in their spending due to the forthcoming 25% reduction in the value of live TV rights, effective from 2012-13." Of the Premier League's clubs, only Arsenal , Liverpool , Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur recorded profits. And while net debt fell by a fifth to £2.6bn, the continued growth in wages means operating margins in the top division have dropped from 16% to 4% since the 1992 birth of the Premier League . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srg Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Where has 2014 come from, if they vote on this now and the Donny Chairman on Radio 5 this afternoon wants it in sooner rather than later. He actually stated that there is a Championship player on £70k a week. Obviously a West Ham player. Bit different to a team having someone on £70k who were in the championship last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I wonder if clubs gamble on expensive loan signings in the run-up to this new rule. That way you can gamble on going up without being lumbered with a bad income to wage ratio if it doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Tree Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 One thing that will definately happen is players will have to cuts in wages because if they dont drop wage demands then many players will find themselves without a club! Its a good thing for football without a doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spike1969 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Obviously a West Ham player. Bit different to a team having someone on £70k who were in the championship last year. ..........Bullard???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srg Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 ..........Bullard???? Think it was £45k he was on when I read of his proposed move to Prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.