You have FFP to make costs sustainable and then you have the likes of Derby and Sheffield Wednesday abusing the system. These clubs are the problem and those that sought to work around the rules before them that ultimately can only benefit the game.
There will always be club owners who believe or imagine there are cracks, gaps and loopholes in the rules and regs through which they can work an advantage. All the while the game is supervised by halfwit disinterested gravy train riding pricks like the EFL's ruling body, clubs will easily employ smarter, craftier brains to find and exploit the inherent failings in the regime. Sometimes an ego maniac owner will blatantly break the rules, eg by preparing falsified accounts, arrogance fueling the belief they'll get away with it. Sometimes the ruling authority will be complicit with, complacent or negligent about simplistic rule breakers. Sometimes the authority will be so slow to act as to defeat justice under the rules. Sometimes the authority will convict a miscreant of malfeasance but then not actually punish them at all for their offense. Just a few imagined examples, not inspired by any particular experience, honest guv. System abusers will keep on abusing all the while the system is inadequate.
Spending by Championship clubs has been known to be unsustainable for a decade at least. The miracle is that so few clubs have yet gone to the wall. Just because one club might choose to gamble multi millions on achieving promotion doesn't compel any others to follow suit. It's a truth they've all been choosing to ignore that they have to cut their cloth to suit their purse. Hitherto there has been an unending supply of chancers, dreamers, crooks and worse willing to take on clubs as a route to a quick payday.
The football authorities have a choice to make: formulate the rules of their competitions to properly impose sustainability and stringently punish rule breakers - or have many many fewer clubs able to remain in those competitions. This is the watershed moment. The TV money fueling the game is suddenly going to be very very much smaller. UEFA, the FA, EFL can choose how many clubs they want to supervise. Share out the bounty among many or keep bundles to just an elite few.
Even with the points deduction this season, they could still stay up.
All they’ll need is to amount 4 more points than what Hull get between now and the end of the season, same with 3 more than what Barnsley get, and 2 more than what Luton get.
They're in trouble, but their form at the moment gives them a chance, even with the punishment.
I bet their players are not being paid. We will see. I think they are done. Hopefully we are not about to enter administration. Would not put it past us. No money coming in.... transfer ban.... ownership issues. Sound like a prime candidate. When I heard on the radio here in the US a few hours ago that “a Championship club had gone into administration” I started sweating.
I’m not saying you are wrong to be worried but why would Charlton be put into administration when there is a willing buyer already on the scene ? It would make zero sense.
Who is the willing buyer? There are interested parties, but as far as I know, no one is willing to buy, as in they haven't agreed a deal.
There should be a safeguard like landlords receive from tenants, a deposit up front. So when a buyer purchases a club, they should be made to pay x amount of millions to the EFL, to stop them just walking away. If owners do right by the club and once they sell they get it back.
Good suggestion
I have been thinking more and more about practical ways to safeguard the game. The problem is the wages that are paid to players. It’s okay for the few elite teams that play in the CL and have global brands. They can sustain the 200k a week salaries.
The market has spiraled out of control. Because the top players can demand half a million a week, the not so top players can find themselves being paid £70k a week. That then means the top end Championship sides and those in lower half of the Prem start paying big big money for not very good players and aren’t able to sustain it.
Even some of the players that play for us, despite probably being lower earners in the grand scheme of things, are probably being paid more than we can afford.
it can’t go on. I’m all in favour of people earning as much money as they can if they work hard and I know footballers have short careers, but not at the expense of mine or other’s football clubs
I also think a rule should be in place where owners don’t lend the clubs money (still within the ffp requirements). They accept that the money they put in is equity. There’s no loans, no interest payments. You are simply allowed to increase your equity. If the shit hits the fan then you lose your investment, end of. Dutchatelet is a prime example and it seems like the blokes at Wigan were in a similar boat. Loaning the clubs money to be paid back at a rate of interest over time. It’s bollocks.
I am not so sure they have that short careers. There are 100s of league 1 and probably some league 2 players that earn well over 100k year.
In a 15 year career that's over 1.5 million, probably more like 2. Plus sponsorship deals, plus bonuses, plus signing on fees.
Then no student loans, no professional exams to pay for etc etc. Also MOST don't live in London. Can afford to buy houses in their early 20s so no wasted rent etc etc.
There can't be many other mass employment that means at 35 your likely to be debt and mortgage free with cash in the bank.
Football league players are paid well over thier economic value.
Agreed, football wages are well OTT. And when people talk about short careers, why should an average footballer earn enough so that they can be comfortable for life at 35? You have one career from 18-35, then you get another job
People talk about our players only earning £5000 a week, that's £260k a year! How many jobs pay you that as a base salary?
How many jobs are you no longer able to perform in after you mid thirties?
You get another job then
10 years at £260k a year, will give you a massive nest egg to buy a decent house and have plenty of savings if you don't blow it.
Then you can get a "normal" job (say £30-50k a year) plus top ups from any football related work you get (media, hospitality, after dinner speeches)
Don't think you can single out footballers on 5K a week for that though, many other industries pay higher than that, investment banking, stock broking, high end recruitment etc. I agree that footballers being on hundreds of thousands a week is ridiculous but £5K a week in the championship is about right to me. I think a cap should be brought in, say £20K a week in prem, £5K in champ and £3K in league one etc. this would make everything a far more level playing field.
It will never happen though because of the ridiculous amount of sky money generated by the huge global audience. Supply and demand as they say.
There should be a safeguard like landlords receive from tenants, a deposit up front. So when a buyer purchases a club, they should be made to pay x amount of millions to the EFL, to stop them just walking away. If owners do right by the club and once they sell they get it back.
Good suggestion
I have been thinking more and more about practical ways to safeguard the game. The problem is the wages that are paid to players. It’s okay for the few elite teams that play in the CL and have global brands. They can sustain the 200k a week salaries.
The market has spiraled out of control. Because the top players can demand half a million a week, the not so top players can find themselves being paid £70k a week. That then means the top end Championship sides and those in lower half of the Prem start paying big big money for not very good players and aren’t able to sustain it.
Even some of the players that play for us, despite probably being lower earners in the grand scheme of things, are probably being paid more than we can afford.
it can’t go on. I’m all in favour of people earning as much money as they can if they work hard and I know footballers have short careers, but not at the expense of mine or other’s football clubs
I also think a rule should be in place where owners don’t lend the clubs money (still within the ffp requirements). They accept that the money they put in is equity. There’s no loans, no interest payments. You are simply allowed to increase your equity. If the shit hits the fan then you lose your investment, end of. Dutchatelet is a prime example and it seems like the blokes at Wigan were in a similar boat. Loaning the clubs money to be paid back at a rate of interest over time. It’s bollocks.
I am not so sure they have that short careers. There are 100s of league 1 and probably some league 2 players that earn well over 100k year.
In a 15 year career that's over 1.5 million, probably more like 2. Plus sponsorship deals, plus bonuses, plus signing on fees.
Then no student loans, no professional exams to pay for etc etc. Also MOST don't live in London. Can afford to buy houses in their early 20s so no wasted rent etc etc.
There can't be many other mass employment that means at 35 your likely to be debt and mortgage free with cash in the bank.
Football league players are paid well over thier economic value.
Agreed, football wages are well OTT. And when people talk about short careers, why should an average footballer earn enough so that they can be comfortable for life at 35? You have one career from 18-35, then you get another job
People talk about our players only earning £5000 a week, that's £260k a year! How many jobs pay you that as a base salary?
How many jobs are you no longer able to perform in after you mid thirties?
You get another job then
10 years at £260k a year, will give you a massive nest egg to buy a decent house and have plenty of savings if you don't blow it.
Then you can get a "normal" job (say £30-50k a year) plus top ups from any football related work you get (media, hospitality, after dinner speeches)
Don't think you can single out footballers on 5K a week for that though, many other industries pay higher than that, investment banking, stock broking, high end recruitment etc. I agree that footballers being on hundreds of thousands a week is ridiculous but £5K a week in the championship is about right to me. I think a cap should be brought in, say £20K a week in prem, £5K in champ and £3K in league one etc. this would make everything a far more level playing field.
It will never happen though because of the ridiculous amount of sky money generated by the huge global audience. Supply and demand as they say.
How many bankers etc earn those sums? A tiny number, and they are the top level ones, the equivalent of PL footballers
When you look at the wages, bang average players at bang average clubs (the Readings, Birminghams, QPRs etc) are earning, it's frightening and unsustainable. Especially as these aren't the sort of clubs the international audience want to watch!
You have FFP to make costs sustainable and then you have the likes of Derby and Sheffield Wednesday abusing the system. These clubs are the problem and those that sought to work around the rules before them that ultimately can only benefit the game.
Also those who abuse the system often get rewarded by promotion to premier league and then the cycle continues as other clubs see abusing the system as the easiest way to reach the premier league.
Derby almost at the play offs now, if they get promoted then clubs will all copy there way.
That is why I would rather see Millwall promoted than Derby and that thought disgusts me.
Even if derby wheeled out a strike force of Kim Jong Un, Harold Shipman and Josef Fritzl, i'd still want them to get promoted instead of Millwall.
There should be a safeguard like landlords receive from tenants, a deposit up front. So when a buyer purchases a club, they should be made to pay x amount of millions to the EFL, to stop them just walking away. If owners do right by the club and once they sell they get it back.
Good suggestion
I have been thinking more and more about practical ways to safeguard the game. The problem is the wages that are paid to players. It’s okay for the few elite teams that play in the CL and have global brands. They can sustain the 200k a week salaries.
The market has spiraled out of control. Because the top players can demand half a million a week, the not so top players can find themselves being paid £70k a week. That then means the top end Championship sides and those in lower half of the Prem start paying big big money for not very good players and aren’t able to sustain it.
Even some of the players that play for us, despite probably being lower earners in the grand scheme of things, are probably being paid more than we can afford.
it can’t go on. I’m all in favour of people earning as much money as they can if they work hard and I know footballers have short careers, but not at the expense of mine or other’s football clubs
I also think a rule should be in place where owners don’t lend the clubs money (still within the ffp requirements). They accept that the money they put in is equity. There’s no loans, no interest payments. You are simply allowed to increase your equity. If the shit hits the fan then you lose your investment, end of. Dutchatelet is a prime example and it seems like the blokes at Wigan were in a similar boat. Loaning the clubs money to be paid back at a rate of interest over time. It’s bollocks.
I am not so sure they have that short careers. There are 100s of league 1 and probably some league 2 players that earn well over 100k year.
In a 15 year career that's over 1.5 million, probably more like 2. Plus sponsorship deals, plus bonuses, plus signing on fees.
Then no student loans, no professional exams to pay for etc etc. Also MOST don't live in London. Can afford to buy houses in their early 20s so no wasted rent etc etc.
There can't be many other mass employment that means at 35 your likely to be debt and mortgage free with cash in the bank.
Football league players are paid well over thier economic value.
Agreed, football wages are well OTT. And when people talk about short careers, why should an average footballer earn enough so that they can be comfortable for life at 35? You have one career from 18-35, then you get another job
People talk about our players only earning £5000 a week, that's £260k a year! How many jobs pay you that as a base salary?
How many jobs are you no longer able to perform in after you mid thirties?
The world has changed. In my day you started work and the vast majority stayed in that job until you retired. Nowadays most people will have several jobs in their lifetime. Some paying good wages and some poor. I know of people in the financial business that have been made redundant several times. Losing a well paid job, moving to a job with a lower salary, and then getting a good move up again. Football clubs have changed as well. Youngsters starting are encouraged to continue with their education and I know that Charlton have let players go because they were not getting good results at school. For many it does not turn out to be a career at all. We have just published a list that have left our academy and not all will find another club. Players understand that they may not have a career or it maybe a short one. Not one player needs to earn a wage that will see them live a life without working ever again.
If wages and agents fees are not contained, there will be fewer paid jobs available. Industries have faced this problem before. The quicker clubs address the issues, the better chance the industry has of surviving.
There should be a safeguard like landlords receive from tenants, a deposit up front. So when a buyer purchases a club, they should be made to pay x amount of millions to the EFL, to stop them just walking away. If owners do right by the club and once they sell they get it back.
Good suggestion
I have been thinking more and more about practical ways to safeguard the game. The problem is the wages that are paid to players. It’s okay for the few elite teams that play in the CL and have global brands. They can sustain the 200k a week salaries.
The market has spiraled out of control. Because the top players can demand half a million a week, the not so top players can find themselves being paid £70k a week. That then means the top end Championship sides and those in lower half of the Prem start paying big big money for not very good players and aren’t able to sustain it.
Even some of the players that play for us, despite probably being lower earners in the grand scheme of things, are probably being paid more than we can afford.
it can’t go on. I’m all in favour of people earning as much money as they can if they work hard and I know footballers have short careers, but not at the expense of mine or other’s football clubs
I also think a rule should be in place where owners don’t lend the clubs money (still within the ffp requirements). They accept that the money they put in is equity. There’s no loans, no interest payments. You are simply allowed to increase your equity. If the shit hits the fan then you lose your investment, end of. Dutchatelet is a prime example and it seems like the blokes at Wigan were in a similar boat. Loaning the clubs money to be paid back at a rate of interest over time. It’s bollocks.
I am not so sure they have that short careers. There are 100s of league 1 and probably some league 2 players that earn well over 100k year.
In a 15 year career that's over 1.5 million, probably more like 2. Plus sponsorship deals, plus bonuses, plus signing on fees.
Then no student loans, no professional exams to pay for etc etc. Also MOST don't live in London. Can afford to buy houses in their early 20s so no wasted rent etc etc.
There can't be many other mass employment that means at 35 your likely to be debt and mortgage free with cash in the bank.
Football league players are paid well over thier economic value.
Agreed, football wages are well OTT. And when people talk about short careers, why should an average footballer earn enough so that they can be comfortable for life at 35? You have one career from 18-35, then you get another job
People talk about our players only earning £5000 a week, that's £260k a year! How many jobs pay you that as a base salary?
How many jobs are you no longer able to perform in after you mid thirties?
You get another job then
10 years at £260k a year, will give you a massive nest egg to buy a decent house and have plenty of savings if you don't blow it.
Then you can get a "normal" job (say £30-50k a year) plus top ups from any football related work you get (media, hospitality, after dinner speeches)
Don't think you can single out footballers on 5K a week for that though, many other industries pay higher than that, investment banking, stock broking, high end recruitment etc. I agree that footballers being on hundreds of thousands a week is ridiculous but £5K a week in the championship is about right to me. I think a cap should be brought in, say £20K a week in prem, £5K in champ and £3K in league one etc. this would make everything a far more level playing field.
It will never happen though because of the ridiculous amount of sky money generated by the huge global audience. Supply and demand as they say.
What makes you say 5k a week is about right? Intrested how you come to that number, not saying your wrong though.
How many stock brokers and investment banks pay thier staff anywhere close to 100% of thier turn over? They get paid that money because thier labour earns thier employer more.
A 20k cap in the premier league we see all the "big clubs" leave. Manchester United pay someone the best part of 300k a week to play for Inter Millan! And still turn a massive operating profit.
Even with the points deduction this season, they could still stay up.
All they’ll need is to amount 4 more points than what Hull get between now and the end of the season, same with 3 more than what Barnsley get, and 2 more than what Luton get.
They're in trouble, but their form at the moment gives them a chance, even with the punishment.
I bet their players are not being paid. We will see. I think they are done. Hopefully we are not about to enter administration. Would not put it past us. No money coming in.... transfer ban.... ownership issues. Sound like a prime candidate. When I heard on the radio here in the US a few hours ago that “a Championship club had gone into administration” I started sweating.
I’m not saying you are wrong to be worried but why would Charlton be put into administration when there is a willing buyer already on the scene ? It would make zero sense.
Who is the willing buyer? There are interested parties, but as far as I know, no one is willing to buy, as in they haven't agreed a deal.
The choice for ESI or whatever they are called this week would under the administration scenario be get nothing back at all or sell to a buyer. Not sure why you think Barclay / Varney are not willing especially holding the whip hand over the sellers of our price or admin. No buyer is ever anything more than an interested party until the deed is done but I think you are just being obtuse.
You have FFP to make costs sustainable and then you have the likes of Derby and Sheffield Wednesday abusing the system. These clubs are the problem and those that sought to work around the rules before them that ultimately can only benefit the game.
Also those who abuse the system often get rewarded by promotion to premier league and then the cycle continues as other clubs see abusing the system as the easiest way to reach the premier league.
Derby almost at the play offs now, if they get promoted then clubs will all copy there way.
That is why I would rather see Millwall promoted than Derby and that thought disgusts me.
Even if derby wheeled out a strike force of Kim Jong Un, Harold Shipman and Josef Fritzl, i'd still want them to get promoted instead of Millwall.
You have FFP to make costs sustainable and then you have the likes of Derby and Sheffield Wednesday abusing the system. These clubs are the problem and those that sought to work around the rules before them that ultimately can only benefit the game.
Also those who abuse the system often get rewarded by promotion to premier league and then the cycle continues as other clubs see abusing the system as the easiest way to reach the premier league.
Derby almost at the play offs now, if they get promoted then clubs will all copy there way.
That is why I would rather see Millwall promoted than Derby and that thought disgusts me.
Even if derby wheeled out a strike force of Kim Jong Un, Harold Shipman and Josef Fritzl, i'd still want them to get promoted instead of Millwall.
You have FFP to make costs sustainable and then you have the likes of Derby and Sheffield Wednesday abusing the system. These clubs are the problem and those that sought to work around the rules before them that ultimately can only benefit the game.
Also those who abuse the system often get rewarded by promotion to premier league and then the cycle continues as other clubs see abusing the system as the easiest way to reach the premier league.
Derby almost at the play offs now, if they get promoted then clubs will all copy there way.
That is why I would rather see Millwall promoted than Derby and that thought disgusts me.
Even if derby wheeled out a strike force of Kim Jong Un, Harold Shipman and Josef Fritzl, i'd still want them to get promoted instead of Millwall.
There should be a safeguard like landlords receive from tenants, a deposit up front. So when a buyer purchases a club, they should be made to pay x amount of millions to the EFL, to stop them just walking away. If owners do right by the club and once they sell they get it back.
Good suggestion
I have been thinking more and more about practical ways to safeguard the game. The problem is the wages that are paid to players. It’s okay for the few elite teams that play in the CL and have global brands. They can sustain the 200k a week salaries.
The market has spiraled out of control. Because the top players can demand half a million a week, the not so top players can find themselves being paid £70k a week. That then means the top end Championship sides and those in lower half of the Prem start paying big big money for not very good players and aren’t able to sustain it.
Even some of the players that play for us, despite probably being lower earners in the grand scheme of things, are probably being paid more than we can afford.
it can’t go on. I’m all in favour of people earning as much money as they can if they work hard and I know footballers have short careers, but not at the expense of mine or other’s football clubs
I also think a rule should be in place where owners don’t lend the clubs money (still within the ffp requirements). They accept that the money they put in is equity. There’s no loans, no interest payments. You are simply allowed to increase your equity. If the shit hits the fan then you lose your investment, end of. Dutchatelet is a prime example and it seems like the blokes at Wigan were in a similar boat. Loaning the clubs money to be paid back at a rate of interest over time. It’s bollocks.
I am not so sure they have that short careers. There are 100s of league 1 and probably some league 2 players that earn well over 100k year.
In a 15 year career that's over 1.5 million, probably more like 2. Plus sponsorship deals, plus bonuses, plus signing on fees.
Then no student loans, no professional exams to pay for etc etc. Also MOST don't live in London. Can afford to buy houses in their early 20s so no wasted rent etc etc.
There can't be many other mass employment that means at 35 your likely to be debt and mortgage free with cash in the bank.
Football league players are paid well over thier economic value.
But, outside the championship which is proven to be flawed for salaries, are they paid above their economic value? Football is an entertainment industry which sells tickets and has other revenue streams. Whilst I agree some of the figures I have heard in terms of wages are ridiculous (mostly due to relegated teams rather than planning to be in that league) it is still comparable economically to a musician who plays the gig circuit as a professional or a backing dancer in a west end play (who all earn on or around the figures you have quoted). It's not a fair comparison to 'average salary' earners as they are in an industry that typically pays much higher wages for the demands of the job.
Why do I get the feeling the championship club close to administration is us?
There is nothing to administrate and Roland is the only serious creditor.
Not so sure. We will have plenty of operational costs, contracts and creditors. Players and staff have preferential status. Also catering and shop contracts, the details of which we don't know. The IT and ticketing infrastructure too. Our assets may be few but our ongoing costs are not. There is some income no doubt but cash flow is critical and seriously disrupted. The situation is ripe for administration as it will be at every other club. What I think we are lacking is control. The Mihail brothers were likely doing the job of administrators, working out which claims and debts were legitimate. If they have left who is now managing operations and more importantly cash flow? Not Elliott or Farnell.
The players are the stars of the show, its a multibillion-pound business, and they deserve to earn what they can
If the rules change then ‘what they can‘ maybe the max of the cap.
Forget the Prem. They can and will sort themselves out.
Football is no ordinary business and it is unacceptable for owners to risk the very existence of a club in a desire to earn a shed load of money and this needs to be addressed.
You have FFP to make costs sustainable and then you have the likes of Derby and Sheffield Wednesday abusing the system. These clubs are the problem and those that sought to work around the rules before them that ultimately can only benefit the game.
Also those who abuse the system often get rewarded by promotion to premier league and then the cycle continues as other clubs see abusing the system as the easiest way to reach the premier league.
Derby almost at the play offs now, if they get promoted then clubs will all copy there way.
That is why I would rather see Millwall promoted than Derby and that thought disgusts me.
Even if derby wheeled out a strike force of Kim Jong Un, Harold Shipman and Josef Fritzl, i'd still want them to get promoted instead of Millwall.
Out of 30 interested buyers, you can only imagine the percentage that are opportunist wrong'uns.
A never ending cycle of scummy owners awaits far too many clubs.
12 interested buyers is a crazy amount, never mind 30.
A large number will be delusioned or attention seekers, then there will be the seriously dodgy ones. Once you've removed them you'll be left with Dave Whelan and maybe one other
True. It'll be Whelan and 11 chancers like Bassini and Southall.
There's no way a northern club with a tiny fanbase have got 12 serious interested buyers in the current climate.
Don't know whether this has been posted already but Lisa Nandy has written an open letter to the EFL in which she asks the sort of questions that we have been for quite a while: "I am at a complete loss as to how, given the circumstances which are now coming to light, this ownership could have been approved.
"Can you tell me how this new ownership model came to be approved, what tests were set and why they were deemed to be met?
"Fans deserve good governance that protects them and their club. This has been badly lacking and I am determined to ensure that this is never allowed to happen again."
Re salary cap for players; the Deloitte annual report last month recommended to contain wages at 70% of revenue (won't happen of course)-
'Deloitte believes teams in the division should work to a salary cap of 70 per cent of revenue to ensure their survival. Tim Bridge, from Deloitte, said: “Even before the financial impact caused by the pandemic, EFL clubs were typically sustained by owner largesse and/or the pursuit of uncertain and uncontrollable promotion or player transfer windfalls.'
There should be a safeguard like landlords receive from tenants, a deposit up front. So when a buyer purchases a club, they should be made to pay x amount of millions to the EFL, to stop them just walking away. If owners do right by the club and once they sell they get it back.
Good suggestion
I have been thinking more and more about practical ways to safeguard the game. The problem is the wages that are paid to players. It’s okay for the few elite teams that play in the CL and have global brands. They can sustain the 200k a week salaries.
The market has spiraled out of control. Because the top players can demand half a million a week, the not so top players can find themselves being paid £70k a week. That then means the top end Championship sides and those in lower half of the Prem start paying big big money for not very good players and aren’t able to sustain it.
Even some of the players that play for us, despite probably being lower earners in the grand scheme of things, are probably being paid more than we can afford.
it can’t go on. I’m all in favour of people earning as much money as they can if they work hard and I know footballers have short careers, but not at the expense of mine or other’s football clubs
I also think a rule should be in place where owners don’t lend the clubs money (still within the ffp requirements). They accept that the money they put in is equity. There’s no loans, no interest payments. You are simply allowed to increase your equity. If the shit hits the fan then you lose your investment, end of. Dutchatelet is a prime example and it seems like the blokes at Wigan were in a similar boat. Loaning the clubs money to be paid back at a rate of interest over time. It’s bollocks.
I am not so sure they have that short careers. There are 100s of league 1 and probably some league 2 players that earn well over 100k year.
In a 15 year career that's over 1.5 million, probably more like 2. Plus sponsorship deals, plus bonuses, plus signing on fees.
Then no student loans, no professional exams to pay for etc etc. Also MOST don't live in London. Can afford to buy houses in their early 20s so no wasted rent etc etc.
There can't be many other mass employment that means at 35 your likely to be debt and mortgage free with cash in the bank.
Football league players are paid well over thier economic value.
Agreed, football wages are well OTT. And when people talk about short careers, why should an average footballer earn enough so that they can be comfortable for life at 35? You have one career from 18-35, then you get another job
People talk about our players only earning £5000 a week, that's £260k a year! How many jobs pay you that as a base salary?
How many jobs are you no longer able to perform in after you mid thirties?
You get another job then
10 years at £260k a year, will give you a massive nest egg to buy a decent house and have plenty of savings if you don't blow it.
Then you can get a "normal" job (say £30-50k a year) plus top ups from any football related work you get (media, hospitality, after dinner speeches)
Don't think you can single out footballers on 5K a week for that though, many other industries pay higher than that, investment banking, stock broking, high end recruitment etc. I agree that footballers being on hundreds of thousands a week is ridiculous but £5K a week in the championship is about right to me. I think a cap should be brought in, say £20K a week in prem, £5K in champ and £3K in league one etc. this would make everything a far more level playing field.
It will never happen though because of the ridiculous amount of sky money generated by the huge global audience. Supply and demand as they say.
5k per week may be do-able.
Let's say a squad of 20 on 5k per week = 5.2m per year
15,000 season tickets at 300 each = 4.5m
Throw in some EFL and TV payments and you'd think it could just about balance, although the other expenses would probably stack up to a fair amount.
If the first 11 were on 5k and the rest of the squad around 3k then I think it looks fairly reasonable.
But in any case, it's not just clubs that are chasing promotion that buckle and pay too much. All the clubs who want to cling on in the division are forced to spend over the odds too.
Salary cap, player draft, and equal share of TV payments across the football league pyramid and everything would be fair and rosy.
Comments
Spending by Championship clubs has been known to be unsustainable for a decade at least. The miracle is that so few clubs have yet gone to the wall. Just because one club might choose to gamble multi millions on achieving promotion doesn't compel any others to follow suit. It's a truth they've all been choosing to ignore that they have to cut their cloth to suit their purse. Hitherto there has been an unending supply of chancers, dreamers, crooks and worse willing to take on clubs as a route to a quick payday.
The football authorities have a choice to make: formulate the rules of their competitions to properly impose sustainability and stringently punish rule breakers - or have many many fewer clubs able to remain in those competitions. This is the watershed moment. The TV money fueling the game is suddenly going to be very very much smaller. UEFA, the FA, EFL can choose how many clubs they want to supervise. Share out the bounty among many or keep bundles to just an elite few.
There are interested parties, but as far as I know, no one is willing to buy, as in they haven't agreed a deal.
It will never happen though because of the ridiculous amount of sky money generated by the huge global audience. Supply and demand as they say.
When you look at the wages, bang average players at bang average clubs (the Readings, Birminghams, QPRs etc) are earning, it's frightening and unsustainable. Especially as these aren't the sort of clubs the international audience want to watch!
I know of people in the financial business that have been made redundant several times. Losing a well paid job, moving to a job with a lower salary, and then getting a good move up again.
Football clubs have changed as well. Youngsters starting are encouraged to continue with their education and I know that Charlton have let players go because they were not getting good results at school. For many it does not turn out to be a career at all. We have just published a list that have left our academy and not all will find another club. Players understand that they may not have a career or it maybe a short one.
Not one player needs to earn a wage that will see them live a life without working ever again.
How many stock brokers and investment banks pay thier staff anywhere close to 100% of thier turn over? They get paid that money because thier labour earns thier employer more.
A 20k cap in the premier league we see all the "big clubs" leave. Manchester United pay someone the best part of 300k a week to play for Inter Millan! And still turn a massive operating profit.
Just wedge him between the posts.
What I think we are lacking is control. The Mihail brothers were likely doing the job of administrators, working out which claims and debts were legitimate. If they have left who is now managing operations and more importantly cash flow? Not Elliott or Farnell.
https://www.lawdonut.co.uk/business/finance-and-business-strategy/dealing-with-insolvency/
I've seen the invoices.
Written in crayon.
Forget the Prem. They can and will sort themselves out.
Football is no ordinary business and it is unacceptable for owners to risk the very existence of a club in a desire to earn a shed load of money and this needs to be addressed.
......harold shipman was a full back
There's no way a northern club with a tiny fanbase have got 12 serious interested buyers in the current climate.
"I am at a complete loss as to how, given the circumstances which are now coming to light, this ownership could have been approved.
"Can you tell me how this new ownership model came to be approved, what tests were set and why they were deemed to be met?
"Fans deserve good governance that protects them and their club. This has been badly lacking and I am determined to ensure that this is never allowed to happen again."
Full letter here:
https://www.wigantoday.net/news/politics/wigan-mp-blasts-football-league-bosses-over-approving-latics-owners-2901475
'Deloitte believes teams in the division should work to a salary cap of 70 per cent of revenue to ensure their survival. Tim Bridge, from Deloitte, said: “Even before the financial impact caused by the pandemic, EFL clubs were typically sustained by owner largesse and/or the pursuit of uncertain and uncontrollable promotion or player transfer windfalls.'
https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/football/west-bromwich-albion/2020/06/12/parachute-cash-made-west-brom-the-top-earners
Let's say a squad of 20 on 5k per week = 5.2m per year
15,000 season tickets at 300 each = 4.5m
Throw in some EFL and TV payments and you'd think it could just about balance, although the other expenses would probably stack up to a fair amount.
If the first 11 were on 5k and the rest of the squad around 3k then I think it looks fairly reasonable.
But in any case, it's not just clubs that are chasing promotion that buckle and pay too much. All the clubs who want to cling on in the division are forced to spend over the odds too.
Salary cap, player draft, and equal share of TV payments across the football league pyramid and everything would be fair and rosy.