Clubs have to sort out their spending. You can't have these situations like Derby & Wednesday where reckless spending led to all the shenangins over ground sales.In an ideal world we'd limit loans to clubs, but de-restrict grants too. If a wealthy owner wants to give a club £eleventy billion they're welcome, it's when they want it back or take the ground as collateral, that's the danger. So... you need to protect grounds too...
Hahaha I was there as well, we were on the verge of the play-offs and full of optimism...I don’t think we won again for the rest of the season.Me and my dad both got separated at Peterborough when it was terracing a few years back. Think John Stead scored. Similar thing, we were in the middle but somehow both ended up at the front.
Edit: “a few years” it was 11 years ago. Fuck sake
It's unrealistic to think that clubs will just give up a 51% stake. Not going to happen.
Clubs have to sort out their spending. You can't have these situations like Derby & Wednesday where reckless spending led to all the shenangins over ground sales.
Football needs a properly enforced salary cap based on income & a limit on how much owners can loan clubs. Grants are should be okay.
No-one can look at football wages and think it's okay. Still got Championship clubs spending over 100% of income on wages (not allowing for this COVID year).
Was thinking yesterday about this and trying to come up with ideas. One of the biggest arguments against the salary cap as a %age of income is that it starts to lock in the current status quo of clubs, with clubs like us lower down the leagues suffering a reduced chance to get to the top of the game (not that I think it’s overly realistic anyway). Then you look at a flat-fee salary cap, and the argument is that clubs like Sunderland shouldn’t be made to match Accrington’s wage restrictions.
Could there be a compromise in between the two? Say a percentage of income, up to a maximum threshold of £X. For example, the PL could have 75% of income with a maximum of £50m, meaning that if a club generated income of £50m they would be capped at £37.5m but conversely if a club generates £100m they’re still capped at £50m. Numbers of course wouldn’t be like this, but yeah. Could even make the absolute threshold comparable to the average league turnover, or somesuch.
Big thing around asset protection (i.e. no selling stadia to flour rules) is to convert to CIC ownership which will not happen under the current stewardship of most clubs. Maybe an aspiration.
Some confusion about Barca as well with some reports saying they were never actually confirmed as in it and only that they'd put it to a member vote which would almost certainly be rejected.ATLETICO MADRID, INTER MILAN LEAVE SUPER LEAGUE
La Liga club Atletico Madrid and Serie A club Inter Milan have become the seventh and eighth clubs to withdraw from the European Super League, following the six Premier League teams.
Salary caps work brilliantly, at least in the NHL which is the only North American sport I follow, as you've never far away from being a contender. Problem here is we don't have a flat league structure, we have the pyramid. Lets be honest if you were starting from scratch now and suggested 92 professional clubs across 4 divisions people would think you were mad.Was thinking yesterday about this and trying to come up with ideas. One of the biggest arguments against the salary cap as a %age of income is that it starts to lock in the current status quo of clubs, with clubs like us lower down the leagues suffering a reduced chance to get to the top of the game (not that I think it’s overly realistic anyway). Then you look at a flat-fee salary cap, and the argument is that clubs like Sunderland shouldn’t be made to match Accrington’s wage restrictions.
Could there be a compromise in between the two? Say a percentage of income, up to a maximum threshold of £X. For example, the PL could have 75% of income with a maximum of £50m, meaning that if a club generated income of £50m they would be capped at £37.5m but conversely if a club generates £100m they’re still capped at £50m. Numbers of course wouldn’t be like this, but yeah. Could even make the absolute threshold comparable to the average league turnover, or somesuch.
Big thing around asset protection (i.e. no selling stadia to flour rules) is to convert to CIC ownership which will not happen under the current stewardship of most clubs. Maybe an aspiration.
Think we will see lots of clubs playing the blame game now, saying it was so and so idea and we only went along with it out of fear of being left behindSome confusion about Barca as well with some reports saying they were never actually confirmed as in it and only that they'd put it to a member vote which would almost certainly be rejected.
Utter nonsense. The Italians have relegated Juve and Fiorentina in the non too distant past. The Scottish did likewise to Rangers. Lower league clubs get fucked constantly... basically they are saying they are spineless.Loads of talk now that you can't punish the clubs as it only punishes the fans.
Fuck off with that, how many teams, including us, have had to deal with shit because of our owners.
Loads of talk now that you can't punish the clubs as it only punishes the fans.
Fuck off with that, how many teams, including us, have had to deal with shit because of our owners.
Quite right. What we need is a group initiated by Fisher and Boddy.If it's to be throughout English football then we can't have the Sky Blue Trust anywhere near us though.
Perhaps the other clubs will have woken up and smelled the coffee and work together to keep these 6 clubs away from positions of influence.We all know nothing will happen to any of these ESL elopers.
The greedy 6 hold far too much power within the PL brand.
Clubs have to sort out their spending. You can't have these situations like Derby & Wednesday where reckless spending led to all the shenangins over ground sales.
Football needs a properly enforced salary cap based on income & a limit on how much owners can loan clubs. Grants are should be okay.
No-one can look at football wages and think it's okay. Still got Championship clubs spending over 100% of income on wages (not allowing for this COVID year).
Loads of talk now that you can't punish the clubs as it only punishes the fans.
Fuck off with that, how many teams, including us, have had to deal with shit because of our owners.
Absolutely and also the realisation that players would leave if they were excluded from domestic leagues and internationals.and another point. It wasn't the fans who stopped this, like many are romanticising about. It was the possibility of the said clubs taking hit financially from the governing bodies, the talk of government legislation and being excluded from other competitions that they milk money from.
Agree if you're just doing it in the English Leagues but these caps need to be applicable to all those within UEFA. Pl aren't going to take on caps that disadvantage them in European competition or in competing for players. Flat caps across Europe difficult due to varying tax regimes for exampleIf you link the cap to income you’ll create loopholes big enough to drive a bus through. An absolute cap per division is the only way
Not an issue in North American sports where tax rates vary state to state, with some states even having 0% tax rates. Two options, either as in North America the cap is the cap irrespective of tax and you just have to deal with it or you calculate the cap using players net salary.Flat caps across Europe difficult due to varying tax regimes for example
Agree if you're just doing it in the English Leagues but these caps need to be applicable to all those within UEFA. Pl aren't going to take on caps that disadvantage them in European competition or in competing for players. Flat caps across Europe difficult due to varying tax regimes for example
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?