New World Order

[BTRFTG]

The closure of the January transfer window highlights what has been blatantly obvious for months,  that the pandemic has accelerated the necessary rate of change required if football is to claw itself back from the cliff edge. Many clubs have probably already missed that boat, a fact upon which we may later rely....

Not only were transfer volumes and fees drastically reduced from 2020 levels, but the nature of transfers themselves has signally changed. With only two transfers of note (Diallo & Benrahma) the remainder of deals saw Premier clubs swapping unwanted dregs of their bloated squads and even then mostly doing so in the form of loans. The equivalent of shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. Benrahma's deal saw the only significant trickle down of funds out of the Premier to the lower leagues.  The Davis deal made big headlines yesterday but rather than Liverpool spending the multi millions we saw panicked on the likes of  Bryan, Reid, Pack ,Flint et al, he went for just £500k. That change in direction is, for us,  a showstopper. It's almost as though there were a collective agreement in the Premier not to do anything.

With the most bloated of squads, little of note for the shop window and a majority of players earning 5 to 10x what they might reasonably expect to receive in today's market, the strategy imposed upon us is stark -if your contract is up - go. Given the huge losses we'll incur over the next couple of years it'll be youth and cheaper end contracts for us in future.  Clubs with better scouting networks abroad will benefit (which doesn't bode well for us, historically.)

SL will have an idea of the losses he's obliged to absorb over the next 3 years (assuming he retains the desire to keep us trading,) but somewhere in the region £50-60m isn't going to be wide of the mark. We therefore need to re-evaluate our strategy for the academy. It'll need to be producing players that will PLAY for us, not 'ones for the future' on loan, or the odd individual that might, once in a blue moon, be sold for decent money (which will be as rare as rocking-horse.) Our management needs to understand that's how we'll operate, lump it or leave it, thus the big name managers for whom fans clamour are out of the equation, those who historically are great at buying themselves out of trouble.

Hard times ahead methinks.

[onlyotib]

Well said. Think football generally needs this. It will stop players dictating clubs over their own contract when it’s running down. It will be more a case of like it (sign) or lump it. A more even playing field as ridiculous amounts of spending on players will clearly have to stop 

[Tinmans Love Child]

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The closure of the January transfer window highlights what has been blatantly obvious for months,  that the pandemic has accelerated the necessary rate of change required if football is to claw itself back from the cliff edge. Many clubs have probably already missed that boat, a fact upon which we may later rely....

Not only were transfer volumes and fees drastically reduced from 2020 levels, but the nature of transfers themselves has signally changed. With only two transfers of note (Diallo & Benrahma) the remainder of deals saw Premier clubs swapping unwanted dregs of their bloated squads and even then mostly doing so in the form of loans. The equivalent of shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. Benrahma's deal saw the only significant trickle down of funds out of the Premier to the lower leagues.  The Davis deal made big headlines yesterday but rather than Liverpool spending the multi millions we saw panicked on the likes of  Bryan, Reid, Pack ,Flint et al, he went for just £500k. That change in direction is, for us,  a showstopper. It's almost as though there were a collective agreement in the Premier not to do anything.

With the most bloated of squads, little of note for the shop window and a majority of players earning 5 to 10x what they might reasonably expect to receive in today's market, the strategy imposed upon us is stark -if your contract is up - go. Given the huge losses we'll incur over the next couple of years it'll be youth and cheaper end contracts for us in future.  Clubs with better scouting networks abroad will benefit (which doesn't bode well for us, historically.)

SL will have an idea of the losses he's obliged to absorb over the next 3 years (assuming he retains the desire to keep us trading,) but somewhere in the region £50-60m isn't going to be wide of the mark. We therefore need to re-evaluate our strategy for the academy. It'll need to be producing players that will PLAY for us, not 'ones for the future' on loan, or the odd individual that might, once in a blue moon, be sold for decent money (which will be as rare as rocking-horse.) Our management needs to understand that's how we'll operate, lump it or leave it, thus the big name managers for whom fans clamour are out of the equation, those who historically are great at buying themselves out of trouble.

Hard times ahead methinks.

Personally I’d rather see a team of academy players rather than a team of players who have no attachment to the club and are there for solely the cash.  Pie in the sky maybe but football has to change to survive

[BTRFTG]

Just now, Tinmans Love Child said:

Personally I’d rather see a team of academy players rather than a team of players who have no attachment to the club and are there for solely the cash.  Pie in the sky maybe but football has to change to survive

I think we will, but from what our academy has output over the years  a spell in the lower leagues is pretty much assured.

[Lrrr]

I think its only going to impact football by resetting it to a point ie wages for the club drop by (random guess) 40% over the next few years, but then we'll see the increase again if nothing is done. Its why some form of wage cap is needed whether its a hard one or based off income (even if its just saying wages can't be more than 90%, or whatever percentage, of income) there needs to be some form just so clubs don't spiral out of control again.

[Red DNA]

Agree with the OP 100%, which is also why I suggested why we ended up with Dean instead of Houghton. I think the club / SL saw all this coming and although Houghton was worthy of an interview his price tag and budget requirements were beyond acceptable?

it’s going to be a bumpy ride for the next few years but at least we’ll potentially be able to support some local talent in our team. 

[onlyotib]

It will also make players far more hungry to achieve and succeed aswell for a transfer (higher wages) rather than a lot of players now a days just sat on the bench or reserves earning £100k + a week. Clubs simply won’t be able to do this

[Loco Rojo]

Football needs a huge shake up which includes the PL- no longer can this go on and if it needs clubs going to the wall and agents and players who think they can make unrealistic demands lose their jobs before they accept more realistic contracts then so be it.  The sooner agents, players and the industry as a whole changes then this will only get worse.

Let's face it, if a pandemic can't change football then nothing will.

[Guest]

I just don't know if this is wishful thinking or whether there will be financial changes in football?

My personal hopes are, there are changes because I believe football is eating itself now.
By way of example, if US (a country that buys into capitalism 100%) teams use salary caps, that's a clue that you can't continue a business with out some sort of financial control.

Is football having it's 2008?

An afterthought
Have organisations like UEFA and FIFA done enough?
In fact, did the EU (I'm no EU basher, this is a genuine question) contribute to the problem with the Bosman ruling?

[The Bard]

41 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

I think its only going to impact football by resetting it to a point ie wages for the club drop by (random guess) 40% over the next few years, but then we'll see the increase again if nothing is done. Its why some form of wage cap is needed whether its a hard one or based off income (even if its just saying wages can't be more than 90%, or whatever percentage, of income) there needs to be some form just so clubs don't spiral out of control again.

SL will want to cut this back asap which is why no offers have been made.  

Our wage bill was £33.5 million for last season and will probably be slightly higher this season due to Mawson, Brunt, Martin, Mariappa etc.  If we say £35 million then 40% is a £14 million deduction or £270,000 per week, an astounding amount that probably wouldn't be covered even if we didn't renew a single contract or recruit any new players.  

We will have the following under contract next season:-

GK Bentley, O'Leary

Defence: JD, Kalas, Vyner, Moore, Cundy, Opi Edwards

Midfield: Nagy, Williams, Bakinson, Morton, Palmer, COD, Massengo

Attack; Iwura Edwards, Martin, Bell, Wells, Semenyo, Jainneh

 

One imagines that there may be a couple of lower offers made to those with 1 year options after their contracts run down but mostly we will probably be looking at getting in 3 or 4 first choice players at RB,CB, striker, wide midfield.

The sort of signing I would like to see would be Matthew Olusande of Rotherham. Out of contract in the summer with 2 seasons' experience at League 1 and the Championship.  Ready to be first choice at RB with room to improve..

 

 

 

 

[054123]

Somebody had to.

[Mr X]

Hopefully an outcome of Covid is that we become the Athletic Bilbao of English football. (We can dream)

We wouldn't be the first to try that approach though as I remember a few years back when in the Premier League Middlesbrough played a team where 15 of the 16 players in the squad were all academy graduates born within 30 miles of the Riverside.  

[Scrumpylegs]

It’s all simple economics. Less money in club coffers will decrease demand for players and less demand for players will decrease player wage demands. All will return to normal when the money available matches pre COVID levels - i.e not for many, many years in my opinion. Those who adapt best to these new realities will reap the rewards. Only time will tell what the best strategy is and I’ve no doubt that this will be a hot topic on here in the coming years!!

[sludge]

3 hours ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Personally I’d rather see a team of academy players rather than a team of players who have no attachment to the club and are there for solely the cash.  Pie in the sky maybe but football has to change to survive

I know what you’re saying however we’ve had academy players in the past who didn’t seem to care that much about the club. Aaron Brown, Liam Rosenoir. Even Bobby Reid and Joe Bryan didn’t hang around too long. I’m not saying that they necessarily should but I’m just not sure that it makes that much difference if a player comes through academy or is brought in from elsewhere. More down to the attitude of the individual player I’d say? 

[the1stknowle]

3 hours ago, JonDolman said:

Could be a lot of players leaving us end of the season then. Even regulars like Weimann, Hunt, Rowe and Pato maybe. 

Yep. I think the big thing to come out of the MA interviews is the reason for not offering contracts being financial uncertainty and a (possible) paradigm shift in wages. For all the abuse he seems to be taking, I think it’s exactly right.
 

Deciding you want to keep a player is first step. But then working out what the benchmark for wages for that player is is going to be really difficult for next year or two while market catches up with the implications of the year without revenue. I don’t think there is anything odd or inconsistent with our approach on Liam Walsh. 
 

And I’m actually surprised we are trying to tie down Fam so aggressively. I really like him as a player but to commit to the sort of wages we are likely offering him, in current climate, is a big risk. 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, the1stknowle said:

Yep. I think the big thing to come out of the MA interviews is the reason for not offering contracts being financial uncertainty and a (possible) paradigm shift in wages. For all the abuse he seems to be taking, I think it’s exactly right.
 

Deciding you want to keep a player is first step. But then working out what the benchmark for wages for that player is is going to be really difficult for next year or two while market catches up with the implications of the year without revenue. I don’t think there is anything odd or inconsistent with our approach on Liam Walsh. 
 

And I’m actually surprised we are trying to tie down Fam so aggressively. I really like him as a player but to commit to the sort of wages we are likely offering him, in current climate, is a big risk. 

And that’s the contradiction to everything MA said about re-contracting the OOC players.

It’s not very consistent to say one thing about OOC players and then say you’ve offered another player the best ever contract.  You open yourself up, especially after blurting stuff out to Sky (whether deliberate or not).

[Harry]

1 hour ago, the1stknowle said:

Yep. I think the big thing to come out of the MA interviews is the reason for not offering contracts being financial uncertainty and a (possible) paradigm shift in wages. For all the abuse he seems to be taking, I think it’s exactly right.
 

Deciding you want to keep a player is first step. But then working out what the benchmark for wages for that player is is going to be really difficult for next year or two while market catches up with the implications of the year without revenue. I don’t think there is anything odd or inconsistent with our approach on Liam Walsh. 
 

And I’m actually surprised we are trying to tie down Fam so aggressively. I really like him as a player but to commit to the sort of wages we are likely offering him, in current climate, is a big risk. 

 

38 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And that’s the contradiction to everything MA said about re-contracting the OOC players.

It’s not very consistent to say one thing about OOC players and then say you’ve offered another player the best ever contract.  You open yourself up, especially after blurting stuff out to Sky (whether deliberate or not).

Exactly Dave. 
I think everyone completely accepts the Walsh (and other ooc’s) situation with finances. Without income, we have no idea what we can pay. Everyone should quite clearly accept that line of thought. 
 

However, that line of thought bears no resemblance to the one which offers Fam a club-record wage, and then brings players in (Lansbury), or attempts to (Assombalonga) who are currently earning a combined £80k per week. 
 

That’s the baffling element. “We don’t know our budget, so we can’t offer ooc’s”, but “we’ll bring in other players on massive wages”. 
 

I honestly don’t know what we are trying to achieve at the moment. 
 

As for the wider debate, it’s gonna be an interesting year or two for sure. 
The salary cap could be the main thing that swings the finances back in favour of the clubs rather than the players & agents. 
Whatever the solution, there will be a rethink over the next year and it’s gonna be interesting to see how it plays out. I wonder if you may still have some clubs who ‘overspend’ now, in the knowledge that contracts they offer now won’t be affected once the cap comes in. 
Could the very rich chairman be willing to subsidise high wages on long contracts to get round the upcoming salary cap. 
As far as I know, if a cap came in, then existing contracts are just capped off at a certain level - so the player can still receive his £50k pw but until the contract expires it goes into the books as £13k pw, being the maximum allowable. 
Could some clubs offer high wages on 5,6,7 year contracts, just to get the better players in now and circumvent the cap when it arrives?? Will be some intriguing moves, I think. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, Harry said:

 

Exactly Dave. 
I think everyone completely accepts the Walsh (and other ooc’s) situation with finances. Without income, we have no idea what we can pay. Everyone should quite clearly accept that line of thought. 
 

However, that line of thought bears no resemblance to the one which offers Fam a club-record wage, and then brings players in (Lansbury), or attempts to (Assombalonga) who are currently earning a combined £80k per week. 
 

That’s the baffling element. “We don’t know our budget, so we can’t offer ooc’s”, but “we’ll bring in other players on massive wages”. 
 

I honestly don’t know what we are trying to achieve at the moment. 
 

As for the wider debate, it’s gonna be an interesting year or two for sure. 
The salary cap could be the main thing that swings the finances back in favour of the clubs rather than the players & agents. 
Whatever the solution, there will be a rethink over the next year and it’s gonna be interesting to see how it plays out. I wonder if you may still have some clubs who ‘overspend’ now, in the knowledge that contracts they offer now won’t be affected once the cap comes in. 
Could the very rich chairman be willing to subsidise high wages on long contracts to get round the upcoming salary cap. 
As far as I know, if a cap came in, then existing contracts are just capped off at a certain level - so the player can still receive his £50k pw but until the contract expires it goes into the books as £13k pw, being the maximum allowable. 
Could some clubs offer high wages on 5,6,7 year contracts, just to get the better players in now and circumvent the cap when it arrives?? Will be some intriguing moves, I think. 

From a future financial info, P&S etc POV ie Lansbury short term, not Assombalonga- and he wouldn't be on hefty wages here IMO- that can actually make some sense- all depends on what our anticipated losses are this year, we have some headroom and I think we'll be fine but the lack of renewed deals in January in the Championship for contracts up in the summer- think Transfermarkt it is between 10-15 renewed already.

10-15- that's it.

With respect to a Championship salary cap, latest reports suggested that deal/proposal was in trouble.

[sephjnr]

3 hours ago, 054123 said:

Somebody had to.

Never the same after the Fingerpoke of Doom.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Mentioned it on another thread and it's not entirely about the medium term, but clubs will- or dare I suggest quite a few clubs anyway- will have taken advantage of deferral of PAYE etc, Business Relief.

That money has to come from somewhere- no chance it will be waived, if we are still meeting our obligations on time, then we could steal a march over quite a few non-Parachute clubs. Course we could also be taking advantage of that (understandable but it will still have to be paid eventually). Same applies with wages deferred last Spring- wonder which clubs have paid these and which have not.

[Merrick's Marvels]

3 hours ago, Mr X said:

Hopefully an outcome of Covid is that we become the Athletic Bilbao of English football. (We can dream)

We wouldn't be the first to try that approach though as I remember a few years back when in the Premier League Middlesbrough played a team where 15 of the 16 players in the squad were all academy graduates born within 30 miles of the Riverside.  

 A lovely thought but completely unrealistic, if history is anything to go by, unless we were happy to settle for a return to life in the lower leagues.

Far more chance of being the Athletic Bilbao of rugby. 

[77 punk]

i wonder if league one and two will return to north and south in the future , to cut travelling costs etc

[Mr X]

43 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

 A lovely thought but completely unrealistic, if history is anything to go by, unless we were happy to settle for a return to life in the lower leagues.

Far more chance of being the Athletic Bilbao of rugby. 

Athletic Bilbao have maintained their Basque only policy and have never been relegated from La Liga and regularly play in European competition so they've managed to be very successful while just using local players. 

If we had a squad comprising solely of all the best players born/brought up within 30 miles of Bristol I think we would probably be in the same position we're in now!    

[The Bard]

we have wasted a lot of money and effort buying too many players and are now taking the necessary action of allowing a load of mostly underwhelming players to leave to thin the squad down to a manageable size. Treating players as investments to be traded at our level is not worth our while in a bear market.  Better just buying players to come and actually play for us.  SL appears to have rightly said if they are our player, play them, and we'll recruit properly in the summer  

We need to concentrate on other areas, namely our S & C which is disastrous.

[Jeez]

Idealistically speaking, it’s possible; but the reality is there remains a huge financial incentive for promotion to the PL, for some club the need to achieve it will get stronger with reduced incomes.

Better players will still get better contracts from the clubs competing to go up/back up.

We may see a bigger gap open up between parachute clubs & the rest of the championship.

[The Bard]

25 minutes ago, 77 punk said:

i wonder if league one and two will return to north and south in the future , to cut travelling costs etc

There is a signficant gap between League 1 & 2 but frankly very little gap between League 2 and the National League.  It would make sense to go North & South there certainly.  

Long term I can see the structure of English football becoming like Germany where there is the Bundesliga and Bundesliga 2 as a separate entity, a 3rd division ran by the German FA as the connection between the Bundesliga and the regional leagues below

[BTRFTG]

3 hours ago, sludge said:

I know what you’re saying however we’ve had academy players in the past who didn’t seem to care that much about the club. Aaron Brown, Liam Rosenoir.

You are right, though sadly not in the case of either of those players.

I've written before of Brown and chatting with his dad at Wycombe. Arguably THE most talented player ever to come through our system. Sublime of touch and control.  Just what couldn't he do in training or warm-up? Just about everything he could do during a game against opponents it transpired. So sad.

Rosenior had no option even if he did prefer out. I never did buy the 'Great Bristol Postage Stamp Crisis'; we didn't offer him a contract hence he found employment elsewhere.

[BTRFTG]

17 minutes ago, Red Alert said:

We may see a bigger gap open up between parachute clubs & the rest of the championship.

Depends upon the clubs I think as most assume parachute payments are fixed: they aren't.

I'm not sure by how much they'll be impaired this year but it's significant. Some clubs who had already budgeted against staying up but also for equivalent sums from previous seasons were even threatening action. That didn't last long, the bulk of the compensation coming from a % of profits and, well, you can work out the rest.....

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Depends upon the clubs I think as most assume parachute payments are fixed: they aren't.

I'm not sure by how much they'll be impaired this year but it's significant. Some clubs who had already budgeted against staying up but also for equivalent sums from previous seasons were even threatening action. That didn't last long, the bulk of the compensation coming from a % of profits and, well, you can work out the rest.....

Any links to this? I had vaguely heard or read about reduced Parachute Payments and TV rights awards- inevitable of course in the circumstances- but things went quiet and there was a lack of detail in the reports.

[BTRFTG]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Any links to this? I had vaguely heard or read about reduced Parachute Payments and TV rights awards- inevitable of course in the circumstances- but things went quiet and there was a lack of detail in the reports.

It's buried in the Premier T&C's I recall.  I think there are 3 elements; one a minimum guaranteed sum, one a % of profits from certain commercial activities, plus a discretionary sum agreed by the club's themselves. Whilst the first is non-negotiable the other two are not and with shareholders to think about they weren't inclined to be as generous as previous years.