Good knows how that will work with teams coming down from the Prem, say a team like West Ham who are spending huge amounts on players get relegated, how will their current contracts work? It works out as just under 14k a week on average per player in a 25 man squad so it's not like the players are going to go hungry but it'll be interesting to see how on earth they'll implement it.
Reckon this will be the grandstand finish to their long and 'in-depth investigations' into Derby, Brum, Sheff Weds, where they say 'due to the extraordinary circumstances of coronovirus blah blah, we have decided the fairest approach in the interests of our members, is this new salary cap idea replete with enough loopholes not to upset anybody'.
Be curious to know what the loopholes are and whether its just the weekly salary or whether it includes signing on fees, bonuses, appearance fees etc.
Pay Rooney £1k a week no doubt with £50k per appearance with another £50k for each goal / assist
Dont get me wrong its nice to finally see these rules coming into place but its too late and there will be clubs who'll find ways around it
I'd be very surprised if a salary cap was implemented in Div Two because there will be too many clubs chasing a lucrative spot in the Premier League and they'd argue that any limit was a "restraint of trade", "as an individual business we should be allowed to spend what we want", or some other bollocks.
Any cap must include all payments to players: salary, bonuses, signing-on fees etc. If it's not in a player's contract the club can't pay it to him.
A player must have only one contract with the club so if you're a player-manager/player-coach then your total remuneration is covered by one contract and therefore covered by the cap. This would stop the potentially farcical situation of a player being given a job title of "player-coach" and designating a very large proportion of their large wages to the "coach" element, regardless of what they actually do, to get around spending regulations.
Other payments to players will need to monitored too; heaven forbid that clubs and their owners might set up dummy companies in order to "sponsor" some of their star players to avoid salary cap restrictions.
If clubs want to bleat about "restraint of trade" or anything like that they can be told that there's nothing stopping them employing as many players as they like, on whatever salary they like; the only restriction is a "playing regulation" that you can only select players from the named first-team squad, lodged with the Football League, and that named squad must comply with salary cap rules. Obviously injuries throughout the season can play havoc with that squad, as we've found to our cost this season, so maybe there needs to be a "reserve player list" that clubs can draw on to replace long-term injuries.
Any breach of salary cap rules must be dealt with harshly otherwise the cap will be a waste of time as owners will think it's a risk worth taking. Hand out decent-sized points penalties for clubs overspending even by accident (although a half-competent admin and finance team should be able to ensure that doesn't happen) and if clubs deliberately attempt to circumvent the salary restrictions then the punishment is automatic relegation.
I'm sure some legal-minded bods can tie up all that into something watertight but I doubt anything will ever be done because of the vested interests of those doing the voting in Football League Towers.
Be curious to know what the loopholes are and whether its just the weekly salary or whether it includes signing on fees, bonuses, appearance fees etc.
Pay Rooney £1k a week no doubt with £50k per appearance with another £50k for each goal / assist
Dont get me wrong its nice to finally see these rules coming into place but its too late and there will be clubs who'll find ways around it
I'd be very surprised if a salary cap was implemented in Div Two because there will be too many clubs chasing a lucrative spot in the Premier League and they'd argue that any limit was a "restraint of trade", "as an individual business we should be allowed to spend what we want", or some other bollocks.
Any cap must include all payments to players: salary, bonuses, signing-on fees etc. If it's not in a player's contract the club can't pay it to him.
A player must have only one contract with the club so if you're a player-manager/player-coach then your total remuneration is covered by one contract and therefore covered by the cap. This would stop the potentially farcical situation of a player being given a job title of "player-coach" and designating a very large proportion of their large wages to the "coach" element, regardless of what they actually do, to get around spending regulations.
Other payments to players will need to monitored too; heaven forbid that clubs and their owners might set up dummy companies in order to "sponsor" some of their star players to avoid salary cap restrictions.
If clubs want to bleat about "restraint of trade" or anything like that they can be told that there's nothing stopping them employing as many players as they like, on whatever salary they like; the only restriction is a "playing regulation" that you can only select players from the named first-team squad, lodged with the Football League, and that named squad must comply with salary cap rules. Obviously injuries throughout the season can play havoc with that squad, as we've found to our cost this season, so maybe there needs to be a "reserve player list" that clubs can draw on to replace long-term injuries.
Any breach of salary cap rules must be dealt with harshly otherwise the cap will be a waste of time as owners will think it's a risk worth taking. Hand out decent-sized points penalties for clubs overspending even by accident (although a half-competent admin and finance team should be able to ensure that doesn't happen) and if clubs deliberately attempt to circumvent the salary restrictions then the punishment is automatic relegation.
I'm sure some legal-minded bods can tie up all that into something watertight but I doubt anything will ever be done because of the vested interests of those doing the voting in Football League Towers.
Those proposals will cause us all sorts of problems when Nimer turns on the taps and starts showering the club with money.
Average championship players are paid far too much IMO. But I don't agree with a flat salary cap as it just changes the problem.
Leeds could probably cover the £18 million with out selling any tickets, Barnsley would still make a loss.
That doesn't even factor in the problem with signing players for or in the premier league.
They need to do something radical but a flat salary cap isn't the answer.
FFP would still be in place (stop laughing at the back), and it is a step in the right direction. It must include agent fees for me though, with a view to making players responsible for paying their agents themselves sometime soon.
I see this all going to the last match where we need a point to stay up, Leeds need a point to win the Championship and our point sends Huddersfield down...
Average championship players are paid far too much IMO. But I don't agree with a flat salary cap as it just changes the problem.
Leeds could probably cover the £18 million with out selling any tickets, Barnsley would still make a loss.
That doesn't even factor in the problem with signing players for or in the premier league.
They need to do something radical but a flat salary cap isn't the answer.
FFP would still be in place (stop laughing at the back), and it is a step in the right direction. It must include agent fees for me though, with a view to making players responsible for paying their agents themselves sometime soon.
This.
Players employ agents to look after their affairs, such as negotiating contracts, therefore they should be responsible for paying them.
Why should a club be paying an agent when the agent is acting on the player's behalf? You'd think that some (all?) of the time there'd be a conflict of interest for the agent.
In my salary cap example above a club could be using an agent to funnel "secret" payments to a player i.e. off the books, outside the salary cap.
It should be against the rules for clubs to pay agents, punishable by points deduction.
Average championship players are paid far too much IMO. But I don't agree with a flat salary cap as it just changes the problem.
Leeds could probably cover the £18 million with out selling any tickets, Barnsley would still make a loss.
That doesn't even factor in the problem with signing players for or in the premier league.
They need to do something radical but a flat salary cap isn't the answer.
FFP would still be in place (stop laughing at the back), and it is a step in the right direction. It must include agent fees for me though, with a view to making players responsible for paying their agents themselves sometime soon.
What happens to the money the "big clubs" can't spend? Who pays the difference at small clubs? If you don't spend the full amount your likely to get relegated.
Generally speaking your right about agents, but at times there are legitimate reasons a club would employ an agent.
I am more in favour of a "zero loss" model but where you can put capital in.
The point of a salary cap is to reduce the number of clubs getting into financial trouble, and also to make the competition a little more equal. It can never be totally so, but at least the differences between big and smaller clubs abilities will be reduced. It works reasonably well in cricket where the cap is 2.5million. But not every club spends that.
How can a championship club that gets promoted compete with the big boys ? Basically have to overhaul the whole squad.
Why would they have to change the whole squad. There only so many player spots available in football. If you are not already in the prem then where will you go as a footballer. The Championship which gives you a chance of getting into the prem.
The point of a salary cap is to reduce the number of clubs getting into financial trouble, and also to make the competition a little more equal. It can never be totally so, but at least the differences between big and smaller clubs abilities will be reduced. It works reasonably well in cricket where the cap is 2.5million. But not every club spends that.
Your right but there aren't 4 or 5 other big cricket leagues played at the same time as ours that require exclusivity.
Also the % difference in income between Surrey and Northamptonshire might be similar to that of Leeds and Luton but the standard deviation will be much greater in the later.
To stop clubs loosing money you would have to set the cap so low the PFA and the "big clubs" wouldn't swollow it, set it to high and it won't make any difference.
They could do what the NBA do, whereby if a team exceeds the salary cap they pay a luxury tax.
This basically means that for every dollar over the cap they go, they pay a certain % extra to the league. Up to $5m dollars over the cap, they pay $1.50 per dollar and this increases the further over it they go.
Therefore teams with higher incomes and revenue basically just pay extra. Ultimately this may defeat the issue but there would have to be some leeway given, as you can't seriously expect teams dropping from the premier league to have the same wage cap as Wycombe and Rotherham.
Pretty sure it applies in the MLB too, Yankees were way over the cap for 2020.
If we’re talking just players and basics then probably around £5-6m a year at a guess (20 players, average wage £5-6k a week - purely plucking numbers out of thin air here btw!).
Add any extra bonuses etc on may take it up slightly.
Comments
Pay Rooney £1k a week no doubt with £50k per appearance with another £50k for each goal / assist
Dont get me wrong its nice to finally see these rules coming into place but its too late and there will be clubs who'll find ways around it
Boooo
That could upset the apple cart!
Any cap must include all payments to players: salary, bonuses, signing-on fees etc. If it's not in a player's contract the club can't pay it to him.
A player must have only one contract with the club so if you're a player-manager/player-coach then your total remuneration is covered by one contract and therefore covered by the cap. This would stop the potentially farcical situation of a player being given a job title of "player-coach" and designating a very large proportion of their large wages to the "coach" element, regardless of what they actually do, to get around spending regulations.
Other payments to players will need to monitored too; heaven forbid that clubs and their owners might set up dummy companies in order to "sponsor" some of their star players to avoid salary cap restrictions.
If clubs want to bleat about "restraint of trade" or anything like that they can be told that there's nothing stopping them employing as many players as they like, on whatever salary they like; the only restriction is a "playing regulation" that you can only select players from the named first-team squad, lodged with the Football League, and that named squad must comply with salary cap rules. Obviously injuries throughout the season can play havoc with that squad, as we've found to our cost this season, so maybe there needs to be a "reserve player list" that clubs can draw on to replace long-term injuries.
Any breach of salary cap rules must be dealt with harshly otherwise the cap will be a waste of time as owners will think it's a risk worth taking. Hand out decent-sized points penalties for clubs overspending even by accident (although a half-competent admin and finance team should be able to ensure that doesn't happen) and if clubs deliberately attempt to circumvent the salary restrictions then the punishment is automatic relegation.
I'm sure some legal-minded bods can tie up all that into something watertight but I doubt anything will ever be done because of the vested interests of those doing the voting in Football League Towers.
Leeds could probably cover the £18 million with out selling any tickets, Barnsley would still make a loss.
That doesn't even factor in the problem with signing players for or in the premier league.
They need to do something radical but a flat salary cap isn't the answer.
Players employ agents to look after their affairs, such as negotiating contracts, therefore they should be responsible for paying them.
Why should a club be paying an agent when the agent is acting on the player's behalf? You'd think that some (all?) of the time there'd be a conflict of interest for the agent.
In my salary cap example above a club could be using an agent to funnel "secret" payments to a player i.e. off the books, outside the salary cap.
It should be against the rules for clubs to pay agents, punishable by points deduction.
Generally speaking your right about agents, but at times there are legitimate reasons a club would employ an agent.
I am more in favour of a "zero loss" model but where you can put capital in.
The Championship which gives you a chance of getting into the prem.
Also the % difference in income between Surrey and Northamptonshire might be similar to that of Leeds and Luton but the standard deviation will be much greater in the later.
To stop clubs loosing money you would have to set the cap so low the PFA and the "big clubs" wouldn't swollow it, set it to high and it won't make any difference.
This basically means that for every dollar over the cap they go, they pay a certain % extra to the league. Up to $5m dollars over the cap, they pay $1.50 per dollar and this increases the further over it they go.
Therefore teams with higher incomes and revenue basically just pay extra. Ultimately this may defeat the issue but there would have to be some leeway given, as you can't seriously expect teams dropping from the premier league to have the same wage cap as Wycombe and Rotherham.
Pretty sure it applies in the MLB too, Yankees were way over the cap for 2020.
Add any extra bonuses etc on may take it up slightly.