Match Thread Bolton Wanderers vs. Coventry City Match Thread - Saturday 10th Aug (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

It's not though is it. It's a meritocracy. Better players earn more because they play in a higher league and get more game time.

It's both a fair system and one that protects clubs, which are community assets as well as businesses, from either fickle billionnaire owners using them as playthings or idiots splurging money that isn't there and putting the whole future of the club in jeopardy.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I've thought about this before and it can be done without salary capping. My proposal would work better with squad caps, but it's not entirely necessary.

You take the fixed/guaranteed revenue from TV/sponsors etc and every member of the squad gets a 'basic wage' from the FPP percentage of that (if they want they can do a 1st team/reserve/youth like pay grades in 'normal' jobs).

This is then supplemented by a season end 'bonus' based on the variable revenues like matchday revenues and ticket sales. This can then be divided up based on minutes played. (If a player is injured there could be a problem, but which could be negated somewhat by saying any signed off by the physio/doctor as injured gets 2x basic wage or whatever, like sick pay).

This system has so many advantages:
It prevents a club spending beyond their means (money for the end of season bonus would be 'ringfenced')
It makes a league more competitive as most players will be on roughly the same basic wage, but it'd stop decent players being hoovered up by the big teams to sit on the bench as they'd earn much less than if they were a first choice elsewhere, so the talent is spread out more evenly.
The good players that play the most would still be the top earners so no problem of the top players not earning more than lesser squad members
No limit on salaries other than what income the club can generate.
Mutual incentive for players and fans.
-Fans can't complain if players don't join as they're partially directly responsible for the pay the club can offer. More fans turn up = more revenue = higher wages that can be paid = more attractive club to better players = improved team.
-Players play well and team wins = more fans want to come = more revenue = players get paid more.
Big teams can't complain because as they raise more revenue in sponsors/advertising/prize money etc they can still pay more than other clubs. If they lose that advantage it's down to their own mismanagement.
Click to expand...

Is this on the assumption of continuing the status quo of the 20 clubs in the top flight getting a whacking great subsidy every year and the rest fuck all? Your proposal is pretty pointless if it is, tinkering with the edges
 
Mask

Mask

Well-Known Member
I feel so bad for Bolton and hate that this can happen to any team... Wish them all the best and hope they make it through this mess.

Tomorrow though, I want Cov to go in all guns blazing and not let up. I just can't help but think that - seeing as the odds are completely stacked against Bolton and they look down and out - they'll nick a win tomorrow. Despite the situation they're not a bad team and they'll be desperate to find a positive. I really hope I'm wrong but we've never really been the team to take advantage of situations like this.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
Is this on the assumption of continuing the status quo of the 20 clubs in the top flight getting a whacking great subsidy every year and the rest fuck all? Your proposal is pretty pointless if it is, tinkering with the edges
Click to expand...

I guess you're talking about parachute payments etc.

Personally I'd remove them because as you say it gives an unfair advantage to those clubs that have just been relegated, but they're there because clubs will have signed players on big long contracts that are unsustainable without PL TV revenue and without it the club could go under unless they have a fire sale on relegation and it'd be like vultures picking over a carcass and players bought for big fees would have to be sold for peanuts just to get the wages off the books.

With this a player wouldn't have a wage of £x per week over the course of the contract, as much is variable and bonus related. Their basic wage would be written into the contract as being reduced with relegation or increased with promotion in correlation with the differing TV money. Relegation would still happen and for those clubs that got relegated the players would take a hit immediately (and rightly so as they're mainly responsible for it happening).

It'd probably lead to a lot more shorter term contracts if players feared getting relegated at a smaller club and being made to play for much lower money if it did (even though it's a fair thing to happen). But then those top players in relegated sides would get picked up by the bigger/non-relegated teams and the players they replaced in those teams would likely drop down due to not getting in the team anymore.

As I've said it does maintain some of the power for the big teams, but realistically it has to to some degree because otherwise they'll just throw another tantrum and threaten breakaway leagues etc. But it does dilute some of their power by reducing their ability to stockpile talent, whereas as it is now they're complaining they can't do their own TV deals which would just make the chasm even greater.
 
fatso

fatso

Well-Known Member
I can see us getting 3 points whatever the result tomorrow.
If Bolton go under or can’t complete the season, then every team will be given the points automatically. So even if we lose or draw it won’t matter in the long run.
But it would be a real blow if someone scores a hat trick only to see it removed from the records!
 
robbiekeane

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I guess you're talking about parachute payments etc.

Personally I'd remove them because as you say it gives an unfair advantage to those clubs that have just been relegated, but they're there because clubs will have signed players on big long contracts that are unsustainable without PL TV revenue and without it the club could go under unless they have a fire sale on relegation and it'd be like vultures picking over a carcass and players bought for big fees would have to be sold for peanuts just to get the wages off the books.

With this a player wouldn't have a wage of £x per week over the course of the contract, as much is variable and bonus related. Their basic wage would be written into the contract as being reduced with relegation or increased with promotion in correlation with the differing TV money. Relegation would still happen and for those clubs that got relegated the players would take a hit immediately (and rightly so as they're mainly responsible for it happening).

It'd probably lead to a lot more shorter term contracts if players feared getting relegated at a smaller club and being made to play for much lower money if it did (even though it's a fair thing to happen). But then those top players in relegated sides would get picked up by the bigger/non-relegated teams and the players they replaced in those teams would likely drop down due to not getting in the team anymore.

As I've said it does maintain some of the power for the big teams, but realistically it has to to some degree because otherwise they'll just throw another tantrum and threaten breakaway leagues etc. But it does dilute some of their power by reducing their ability to stockpile talent, whereas as it is now they're complaining they can't do their own TV deals which would just make the chasm even greater.
Click to expand...

I quite like the idea in the MLS where you have a designated player. Also I am not sure if it's because of salary caps...not sure if they exist, but I think Tom Brady in the NFL could earn a lot more money elsewhere in salary but he decided to stay at the best team because being the best and winning brings in more in endorsements.

I think it's too far gone though, way to much money being made by people to change it now. Needed to be done earlier on.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I guess you're talking about parachute payments etc.

Personally I'd remove them because as you say it gives an unfair advantage to those clubs that have just been relegated, but they're there because clubs will have signed players on big long contracts that are unsustainable without PL TV revenue and without it the club could go under unless they have a fire sale on relegation and it'd be like vultures picking over a carcass and players bought for big fees would have to be sold for peanuts just to get the wages off the books.

With this a player wouldn't have a wage of £x per week over the course of the contract, as much is variable and bonus related. Their basic wage would be written into the contract as being reduced with relegation or increased with promotion in correlation with the differing TV money. Relegation would still happen and for those clubs that got relegated the players would take a hit immediately (and rightly so as they're mainly responsible for it happening).

It'd probably lead to a lot more shorter term contracts if players feared getting relegated at a smaller club and being made to play for much lower money if it did (even though it's a fair thing to happen). But then those top players in relegated sides would get picked up by the bigger/non-relegated teams and the players they replaced in those teams would likely drop down due to not getting in the team anymore.

As I've said it does maintain some of the power for the big teams, but realistically it has to to some degree because otherwise they'll just throw another tantrum and threaten breakaway leagues etc. But it does dilute some of their power by reducing their ability to stockpile talent, whereas as it is now they're complaining they can't do their own TV deals which would just make the chasm even greater.
Click to expand...

Parachute payments are pointless, again they are a fig leaf for clubs being relegated. They still do not address the fundamental problem.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
I quite like the idea in the MLS where you have a designated player. Also I am not sure if it's because of salary caps...not sure if they exist, but I think Tom Brady in the NFL could earn a lot more money elsewhere in salary but he decided to stay at the best team because being the best and winning brings in more in endorsements.

I think it's too far gone though, way to much money being made by people to change it now. Needed to be done earlier on.
Click to expand...

But the MLS does have salary capping. If anything the designated player can cause huge problems because they earn so much more than everyone else. It's not a good way to foster team spirit IMO. Plus the MLS runs a franchise system - the league holds the 'share' and they can give it to someone else if they so choose.

My proposal is far more in line with capitalism than that model, which is state-control monopoly-like as the league has so much power. I've always found it weird how the most capitalist nation on Earth runs so many of its professional sports on such a non market-driven basis.

But I agree it needed to be done earlier.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
Parachute payments are pointless, again they are a fig leaf for clubs being relegated. They still do not address the fundamental problem.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that the Sky (and BT) money creating such a massive divide between PL and FLC is a massive problem, but how can you stop someone who wants to pay silly money for broadcasting rights? Are they supposed to turn it down? That's not going to go down well with clubs, turning down potential revenue.

So the most that can be done really is to even the playing field a bit by making is more difficult for clubs to hoard players and thus spread the talent out more across each league and thus make it more competitive. That puts more teams in with a likelihood of relegation and with the immediate drop in earnings without parachute payments affecting player wages the chances of them just bouncing back and it becoming an almost closed system for the big teams is reduced.

It becomes more about the ability of scouting, coaching, management and tactics than "just we've got shitloads of money and can buy the best, stuff the rest".

I'm not saying the idea is perfect, but it would be a much fairer thing than the current set-up.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I agree with you that the Sky (and BT) money creating such a massive divide between PL and FLC is a massive problem, but how can you stop someone who wants to pay silly money for broadcasting rights? Are they supposed to turn it down? That's not going to go down well with clubs, turning down potential revenue.

So the most that can be done really is to even the playing field a bit by making is more difficult for clubs to hoard players and thus spread the talent out more across each league and thus make it more competitive. That puts more teams in with a likelihood of relegation and with the immediate drop in earnings without parachute payments affecting player wages the chances of them just bouncing back and it becoming an almost closed system for the big teams is reduced.

It becomes more about the ability of scouting, coaching, management and tactics than "just we've got shitloads of money and can buy the best, stuff the rest".

I'm not saying the idea is perfect, but it would be a much fairer thing than the current set-up.
Click to expand...

They hoard players because they can afford to, which then reduces the leverage of any FL club trying to agree contracts with them. PL clubs can afford to pay players better wages for sitting in the reserves. The problems with football cannot be addressed without abolishing the Premier League and with it the TV deal imo,

Lawrence of the Lonely Season blog posted an interesting thing on Twitter earlier, about whether or not the TV deals and some of the contractual obligations within them are compliant with EU competition law. If the EU decided that they weren't, the arse would fall out of that market very quickly. Fingers crossed.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
I quite like the idea in the MLS where you have a designated player. Also I am not sure if it's because of salary caps...not sure if they exist, but I think Tom Brady in the NFL could earn a lot more money elsewhere in salary but he decided to stay at the best team because being the best and winning brings in more in endorsements.

I think it's too far gone though, way to much money being made by people to change it now. Needed to be done earlier on.
Click to expand...

One thing that I think may come into the PL in terms of broadcasting (though not necessarily a good thing) is all games will be available via a stream and the broadcasting revenue will be split depending on the viewing figures of each fixture. This would be to placate the big clubs wanting to sell their own broadcasting rights, but will ultimately just give them a larger section of the pie.

However, if there's a corker of a game going on between two lower placed clubs that gets viewers attention it could result in them getting more viewers. Play entertaining football and have an exciting game and you could increase your share of the TV money (most would probably stick with a dull 0-0 between Chelsea and Man U than tune in to a 5-4 classic between Sheffield Utd and Brighton but you have to have hope not everyone is a cretin believing the hype of the top six)

I also think that we might end up seeing a Redzone style programme, replacing the likes of Soccer Saturday (which is essentially the same thing but without being able to watch the action)
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
They hoard players because they can afford to, which then reduces the leverage of any FL club trying to agree contracts with them. PL clubs can afford to pay players better wages for sitting in the reserves. The problems with football cannot be addressed without abolishing the Premier League and with it the TV deal imo,

Lawrence of the Lonely Season blog posted an interesting thing on Twitter earlier, about whether or not the TV deals and some of the contractual obligations within them are compliant with EU competition law. If the EU decided that they weren't, the arse would fall out of that market very quickly. Fingers crossed.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why I said it would work better with squad caps.

We do need to see the end of the PL monopoly, but if the market fell out of it too quickly you'd see clubs fail and many players would also be massively affected because of a lifestyle they lead based on that money and I could see loads of bankruptcies. You may argue the sensible will still be set for life and those that are affected are idiots, but I just don't think they or their families deserve the mental strain of such a situation.

I'd much prefer to see the TV deals fall steadily in value to more sensible levels to give time for adjustment, but experience tells us that isn't going to happen. Like always it's the greed of going for that extra buck even if it's not sustainable so when it does go wrong the effects are catastrophic, rather than chasing more gentle but sustainable growth.

This thread has been rather hijacked hasn't it. Let's give Bolton a stuffing!
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
It's not though is it. It's a meritocracy. Better players earn more because they play in a higher league and get more game time.

It's both a fair system and one that protects clubs, which are community assets as well as businesses, from either fickle billionnaire owners using them as playthings or idiots splurging money that isn't there and putting the whole future of the club in jeopardy.
Click to expand...

I’m only playing.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
They hoard players because they can afford to, which then reduces the leverage of any FL club trying to agree contracts with them. PL clubs can afford to pay players better wages for sitting in the reserves. The problems with football cannot be addressed without abolishing the Premier League and with it the TV deal imo,

Lawrence of the Lonely Season blog posted an interesting thing on Twitter earlier, about whether or not the TV deals and some of the contractual obligations within them are compliant with EU competition law. If the EU decided that they weren't, the arse would fall out of that market very quickly. Fingers crossed.
Click to expand...

The other point I want to make is that it should even out the competition within the PL, because all the players in that league would be on roughly the same basic wage and so playing time becomes a more important factor.

A squad player at Chelsea would be better off financially becoming a first teamer at say Bournemouth. That makes the PL talent more spread out between the clubs and thus the league becomes a lot more competitive and the chances of a club getting relegated increases, and if they do the instant drop in revenue means they don't have that massive advantage over other clubs in attracting players.

They will have a PL squad to start with, but then it's down to the players to decide if they're willing to get paid less for the season, and if not they'll seek a move away. Hence the shorter contracts I was talking about so they don't get 'trapped'.

Personally I'd also like to see more teams promoted/relegated each year, say top quarter up, bottom quarter down. Mixes things up a bit more and increases the risk, which should in theory make the clubs be more careful in their spending (although undoubtedly it'd just lead to some numpty spending even more totally ridiculous amounts to try and avoid it, leading others to follow suit).
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Salary caps work perfectly in teh US as it's a closed market. NFL is 32 teams all in the states all working under the same conditions. You put a salary cap on here, the pound nosedives and all the players leave for Spain, there is no way you could enforce an international salary cap as football's too big.

I think squad sizes are definitely part of the solution, at each level clubs should only be able to have a certain number of players and this is at all points. If a player is signed when you're at your cap then one is released and able to sign for free lower down the pyramid.
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Johhny Blue said:
Ourselves and Wycombe will have to share the 6 points with everyone else in the division
Click to expand...
Why do you think if Bolton or Bury went bust every team would be awarded a win? I don't get the train of thought. If it happens there results would be expunged and it would be as if the season started with 23/22 teams.
 
Frank Sidebottom

Frank Sidebottom

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
Why do you think if Bolton or Bury went bust every team would be awarded a win? I don't get the train of thought. If it happens there results would be expunged and it would be as if the season started with 23/22 teams.
Click to expand...
That's not what's he's said. He's suggested that the 6 points gained by Coventry and Wycombe would be divided by the remaining 22/23 teams. So 0.25 points each or something like that.
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Timperley said:
That's not what's he's said. He's suggested that the 6 points gained by Coventry and Wycombe would be divided by the remaining 22/23 teams. So 0.25 points each or something like that.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I've just seen plenty of people suggesting every team would be awarded two wins were a team to go.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
Fair enough. I've just seen plenty of people suggesting every team would be awarded two wins were a team to go.
Click to expand...

If it happened before a game was played it'd be fine, as it'd be the same for everyone. But then so would be just having a league table of 44 or 42 games.

Once games have been played it isn't fair because of goal difference etc. The only fair thing to do is just act like the games played didn't occur.

Having said that if we play tomorrow and pick up a couple of injuries to key players it's not fair on us. Plus having played those games our players have had to play an extra game whereas others will get a couple of 'bye' weeks to rest at some point in the season.
 
Sky Blue Harry H

Sky Blue Harry H

Well-Known Member
fatso said:
I can see us getting 3 points whatever the result tomorrow.
If Bolton go under or can’t complete the season, then every team will be given the points automatically. So even if we lose or draw it won’t matter in the long run.
But it would be a real blow if someone scores a hat trick only to see it removed from the records!
Click to expand...

Bolton won't go under, but Bury might.
 
Sky Blue Harry H

Sky Blue Harry H

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
Why do you think if Bolton or Bury went bust every team would be awarded a win? I don't get the train of thought. If it happens there results would be expunged and it would be as if the season started with 23/22 teams.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if teams get awarded zero points or 100, the positions in the league table would remain unaffected (albeit you could have teams relegated with over 100 points!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top