And Its Smith Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 On the one hand this sounds like a mad decision but when you consider that there are apparently many different ways that the proposed ruling could be cheated, it’s no surprise. Would be interested to know how City voted. I believe they were for the cap in principle but could well have voted against the proposal when they read the detail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 Yeah I believe the criticisms of the proposed format are perfectly valid, one example being a selling club giving a player a ‘contract termination fee’ after the buying club paying an increased transfer fee to make up the extra wages etc, no doubt something needs to be done but a scenario cant be created where relegated teams are almost guaranteed to go back up and promoted teams the same for relegation as it’s hard enough already. Am I just being dim here but could you just not massive reduce the amount you’re allowed to lose for FFP over 3 seasons? Rather than being allowed to lose £39m just say you can only lose say £10m? 29m less over 3 years so what 9.6m ish less per season or £181,000 less per week which would represent a chunk taken off wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 5 minutes ago, Lrrr said: Yeah I believe the criticisms of the proposed format are perfectly valid, one example being a selling club giving a player a ‘contract termination fee’ after the buying club paying an increased transfer fee to make up the extra wages etc, no doubt something needs to be done but a scenario cant be created where relegated teams are almost guaranteed to go back up and promoted teams the same for relegation as it’s hard enough already. Am I just being dim here but could you just not massive reduce the amount you’re allowed to lose for FFP over 3 seasons? Rather than being allowed to lose £39m just say you can only lose say £10m? 29m less over 3 years so what 9.6m ish less per season or £181,000 less per week which would represent a chunk taken off wages. I’m very fast getting to the point that if these clubs don’t want a fair and level playing field then scrap FFP and just go back to how it was and let the owners decide how much they are going to spend - I’m sick of it all and not being able to compete despite having a billionaire owner whilst watching others cheat is starting to test the patience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 Bristol Bears voted in favour of a more restrictive salary cap in rugby just last year, so it would be curious if SL didn't at least support the principle of one in football where quite clearly wages have spiraled out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted January 20, 2021 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 6 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: Bristol Bears voted in favour of a more restrictive salary cap in rugby just last year, so it would be curious if SL didn't at least support the principle of one in football where quite clearly wages have spiraled out of control. The devil is in the detail though. Maybe the rugby rules were stricter than those proposed here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 35 minutes ago, Rob k said: I’m very fast getting to the point that if these clubs don’t want a fair and level playing field then scrap FFP and just go back to how it was and let the owners decide how much they are going to spend - I’m sick of it all and not being able to compete despite having a billionaire owner whilst watching others cheat is starting to test the patience I don't have a problem with the idea of an owner covering club losses or financing a move for players if they accept they're not seeing the money they put in back, so its not a loan etc its a straight up injection of their own money, or converting losses from money they put in to shares, its just gone in a sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 4 minutes ago, And Its Smith said: The devil is in the detail though. Maybe the rugby rules were stricter than those proposed here Yep, and as we have seen football clubs will pay £££££ to top legal people to find the loopholes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 39 minutes ago, Rob k said: I’m very fast getting to the point that if these clubs don’t want a fair and level playing field then scrap FFP and just go back to how it was and let the owners decide how much they are going to spend - I’m sick of it all and not being able to compete despite having a billionaire owner whilst watching others cheat is starting to test the patience Those are the key words Rob. FFP / P&S is more about financial stability, and therefore mis-aligned with your comment in bold. That’s the bit they need to solve, making it fair and mitigating risk of clubs going bust. I think salary cap will help, but not on its own. I like it’s concept, and the good thing imho is that they’ve identified loopholes ahead of implementation. That’s actually encouraging. We don’t want another stadium loophole exploitation do we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 Wrong thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 19 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Those are the key words Rob. FFP / P&S is more about financial stability, and therefore mis-aligned with your comment in bold. That’s the bit they need to solve, making it fair and mitigating risk of clubs going bust. I think salary cap will help, but not on its own. I like it’s concept, and the good thing imho is that they’ve identified loopholes ahead of implementation. That’s actually encouraging. We don’t want another stadium loophole exploitation do we. Yes- very fair point, i suppose what i meant is what you have highlighted, the loopholes in FFP are ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 5 hours ago, Rob k said: Yep, and as we have seen football clubs will pay £££££ to top legal people to find the loopholes Saracens in the rugby however once it was unpicked were battered by the authorities. Indeed, Part 1 of their punishment was a 35 point deduction (5 for a win in Rugby) and a £5.8m fine from memory. That's a BIG fine in Rugby, about a quarter to a third of turnover. They were then expected to open their books for audit in January to check things were coming down in line with ongoing and existing compliance. They were not keen! Net result was enforced relegation, and a further 70 points to make it happen. Think clubs actually voted on Part two and new bits to the punishment were introduced mid season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 5 hours ago, Rob k said: Yes- very fair point, i suppose what i meant is what you have highlighted, the loopholes in FFP are ridiculous There aren't actually all that many in FFP. Fixed assets sale and leaseback is the big one, suppose Derby and Rooney another but there aren't that many. There was under the last CEO at the EFL however, pisspoor enforcement in most cases, in all but the most egregious ones. ie Birmingham and QPR. Derby one was confusing on some levels, the EFL were sloppy in their processes in summer 2018, notably with respect to the rent due on such a transaction! There's a lot more that can be picked apart but they should have insisted on £4.16m per year rent come hell or high water even if only for FFP purposes. It'd be broadly in line with market rate for a £81.1m transaction of this nature IMO, certainly pre Covid. This number appeared consistently in the correspondence surrounding the independent valuations obtained by Derby. The only way this feels like it might be legit is it Derby's commercial revenue takes a hit as Gellaw Newco 202 and 204 are outside of the Group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1t_ref_again Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 Until they get rid of parachute payments they will always have the problem, they need to introduce a clause about wage reduction when relegated to overcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.