Take Over

[Breightmet Boy]

3 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It's the responsibility of the clubs themselves though to ensure proper financial management. Yes some trickle down money is helpful, but the clubs can't sulk and moan with a sense of entitlement: all got to learn to cut their cloth accordingly.

That's where the game's governing bodies must become stronger.

Maybe some sort of salary ceiling, capping of agents fees etc. Some tough love needed, plenty of money coming into the game, just too much of it going straight back out.

Football is 'dog eat dog' and that's it, unfortunately we are amongst the 72 of the 92 that get peanuts thrown at us, half chewed ones at that.  But bollocks to the World, were still alive and kicking 🙂

[bwfcfan5]

16 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It's the responsibility of the clubs themselves though to ensure proper financial management. Yes some trickle down money is helpful, but the clubs can't sulk and moan with a sense of entitlement: all got to learn to cut their cloth accordingly.

That's where the game's governing bodies must become stronger.

Maybe some sort of salary ceiling, capping of agents fees etc. Some tough love needed, plenty of money coming into the game, just too much of it going straight back out.

Something has to change given so many clubs are losing money. I suspect the issue is that the bottom two leagues don't make enough money to sustainably stay fully professional. They lose money to sign professional players. If they were to cut their cloth they'd be probably signing semi-pros in terms of salary level in a lot of cases. 

I don't think it is entirely the clubs' who can change this. There is a lot of money in the game and it needs somehow to find a balance. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

9 minutes ago, Breightmet Boy said:

Football is 'dog eat dog' and that's it, unfortunately we are amongst the 72 of the 92 that get peanuts thrown at us, half chewed ones at that.  But bollocks to the World, were still alive and kicking 🙂

 No problems with that. Just want each dog to be under the same, strong code so no risk of being abandoned by cunty owners and the like.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 minute ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Something has to change given so many clubs are losing money. I suspect the issue is that the bottom two leagues don't make enough money to sustainably stay fully professional. They lose money to sign professional players. If they were to cut their cloth they'd be probably signing semi-pros in terms of salary level in a lot of cases. 

I don't think it is entirely the clubs' who can change this. There is a lot of money in the game and it needs somehow to find a balance. 

They only lose money by paying professionals too much.

If all clubs are sufficiently regulated, then they can't get those excessive wages anywhere, and if they want to remain in the game then accept that wages will have to reduce. They won't become poor overnight

[bwfcfan5]

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

They only lose money by paying professionals too much.

If all clubs are sufficiently regulated, then they can't get those excessive wages anywhere, and if they want to remain in the game then accept that wages will have to reduce. They won't become poor overnight

I really just don't think that works. At all. The problem is you have kids who never play a premiership game who earn more in a year than some lower league journeymen will in their whole career. And the kids - eventually will be in the lower leagues themselves. 

The fact is that you can't just force clubs who already make a loss even without competing at all to reduce even further. You need to re-align the financing of the game - or accept that we are really only able to sustain 2 professional leagues and cut everyone else adrift. 

Personally I don't like the second option because it means that clubs like ourselves potentially are no longer in the football league. And it destroys a tradition that I believe is salvageable. Given only a tiny percentage of unique cases manage to run without losing money outside the top flight - and given many of those clubs are as well run as can be - I think there needs to be a broader view taken. 

Its a vicious cycle - Bolton for example haven't cut their cloth accordingly even in the last three seasons yet the fans were unhappy with the quality of player. Imagine if they'd been even more frugal and signed league 2 players simply to balance the books. Its easy to say "that's fine" but when you lose season ticket holders and tickets sales go down you have to cut more and more. So realistically the league needs to find a way to help keep the lower league alive - or I think football as a whole suffers. 

[Eavesy]

51 minutes ago, Pricey said:

This should have been implemented years ago, this is why the game has gone crazy with transfer fees and wages. I will probably get shot by saying this but Alex Ferguson had it right. He was to be paid £1 more than the highest paid player and IMO that is how it should be. Managers should be on more money than players

Except ours. Definitely not ours 

[Farnywhite]

1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said:

So its is Premier league money? 

It’s not money out of the goodness of there hearts it’s a collective agreement that was made by EFL and premier league so basically they can rob kids from lower league clubs Holloway was ranting and raving about it on talk sport yesterday 

[DirtySanchez]

44 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

I really just don't think that works. At all. The problem is you have kids who never play a premiership game who earn more in a year than some lower league journeymen will in their whole career. And the kids - eventually will be in the lower leagues themselves. 

The fact is that you can't just force clubs who already make a loss even without competing at all to reduce even further. You need to re-align the financing of the game - or accept that we are really only able to sustain 2 professional leagues and cut everyone else adrift. 

Personally I don't like the second option because it means that clubs like ourselves potentially are no longer in the football league. And it destroys a tradition that I believe is salvageable. Given only a tiny percentage of unique cases manage to run without losing money outside the top flight - and given many of those clubs are as well run as can be - I think there needs to be a broader view taken. 

Its a vicious cycle - Bolton for example haven't cut their cloth accordingly even in the last three seasons yet the fans were unhappy with the quality of player. Imagine if they'd been even more frugal and signed league 2 players simply to balance the books. Its easy to say "that's fine" but when you lose season ticket holders and tickets sales go down you have to cut more and more. So realistically the league needs to find a way to help keep the lower league alive - or I think football as a whole suffers. 

Thing is it's never going to happen. Prem teams ate never going to go for it especially those at the top as they'll lose their players to countries where there is no such rule 

Uefa tried it in the champs league with FFP and did City and PSG for it. Then they realised that they with their players are essential to marketing the product so backed off. They'd probably be happy to hammer Apoel Nicossia should they ever break the rules though 

[bwfcfan5]

2 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Thing is it's never going to happen. Prem teams ate never going to go for it especially those at the top as they'll lose their players to countries where there is no such rule 

Uefa tried it in the champs league with FFP and did City and PSG for it. Then they realised that they with their players are essential to marketing the product so backed off. They'd probably be happy to hammer Apoel Nicossia should they ever break the rules though 

Yep. I find it fascinating that the USA - the bastion of competitive capitalism like their sports to be as even and competitive as possible in many cases. Yet we as a country seem subservient to Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea....

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said:

I really just don't think that works. At all. The problem is you have kids who never play a premiership game who earn more in a year than some lower league journeymen will in their whole career. And the kids - eventually will be in the lower leagues themselves. 

The fact is that you can't just force clubs who already make a loss even without competing at all to reduce even further. You need to re-align the financing of the game - or accept that we are really only able to sustain 2 professional leagues and cut everyone else adrift. 

Personally I don't like the second option because it means that clubs like ourselves potentially are no longer in the football league. And it destroys a tradition that I believe is salvageable. Given only a tiny percentage of unique cases manage to run without losing money outside the top flight - and given many of those clubs are as well run as can be - I think there needs to be a broader view taken. 

Its a vicious cycle - Bolton for example haven't cut their cloth accordingly even in the last three seasons yet the fans were unhappy with the quality of player. Imagine if they'd been even more frugal and signed league 2 players simply to balance the books. Its easy to say "that's fine" but when you lose season ticket holders and tickets sales go down you have to cut more and more. So realistically the league needs to find a way to help keep the lower league alive - or I think football as a whole suffers. 

Of course it can work. As all clubs will be covered by the same rules.

Perhaps any clubs not conforming are hit by points deductions and not just fines. That ends any potential benefits of spending beyond their means.

I'm fairly sure the vast majority would be pleased to not have to fork out stupid money for players: if trying to keep up with the others is crippling them and potentially ending them as a club then there's quite simply no alternative: costs must be cut.

There will be the same draw of the bigger clubs for the better players, and that's vital for income for smaller clubs, all that is required is a fundamental change whereby clubs aren't spending disproportionately large amounts on wages.

There will still be discrepancies in wages between clubs, but if those wages were 'x' lower throughout, but with the same income then there's a benefit for them.

Can't see it happening voluntarily, as some may look to manipulate things for their benefit, so simply more strict governance needed.

At the bottom end, if some clubs' players need to find additional work to supplement their football income then so be it.

No different to an individual with more than one job trying to make ends meet.

[Spider]

33 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Yep. I find it fascinating that the USA - the bastion of competitive capitalism like their sports to be as even and competitive as possible in many cases. Yet we as a country seem subservient to Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea....

It's a closed shop though.

There's no promotion into/relegation out of the NFL (bar the occasional change of franchise).

Ironically, what you've hit on there is the exact scenario UEFA & The Premier League would love to happen.

[DirtySanchez]

35 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Yep. I find it fascinating that the USA - the bastion of competitive capitalism like their sports to be as even and competitive as possible in many cases. Yet we as a country seem subservient to Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea....

Its not just them though

You could draw a line from the top six or seven and downwards all those teams are bothered about is staying up 

Burnley and Watford seem well run so probably could live with a couple of seasons in the championship should the worst happen but not sure many others would cope

[bwfcfan5]

17 minutes ago, Spider said:

It's a closed shop though.

There's no promotion into/relegation out of the NFL (bar the occasional change of franchise).

Ironically, what you've hit on there is the exact scenario UEFA & The Premier League would love to happen.

Yeah that is true. But at least they are competitive within that. The USA system in terms of below the top level is different anyway with college sports etc...

[frank_spencer]

16 minutes ago, Spider said:

It's a closed shop though.

There's no promotion into/relegation out of the NFL (bar the occasional change of franchise).

Ironically, what you've hit on there is the exact scenario UEFA & The Premier League would love to happen.

Not just the nfl, all the professional sports leagues (apart from the mls) over there are either the only one or the very pinnacle of the sport so there is no fear of players fucking off to other places. 

Football is a global sport so if the fa/epl bring in salary caps then the players will go play in spain/Italy etc. If UEFA do it then even more players will be off east for mega bucks or to the Americas. 

It would have to be global ruling and I can't see that happening. 

 

[frank_spencer]

2 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Yeah that is true. But at least they are competitive within that. The USA system in terms of below the top level is different anyway with college sports etc...

The Dallas Cowboys have more money than any sports team in the world and have been average at best for decades. 

[Spider]

14 minutes ago, frank_spencer said:

The Dallas Cowboys have more money than any sports team in the world and have been average at best for decades. 

There's no "poor" NFL teams 

Somehow or other, UEFA/Premier League will find a way to get a Super League. It may not be closed shop but I reckon they'll allow entry based on more criteria than the Promotion/relegation method we have now.

They'll justify it by pointing the finger squarely at clubs like Bolton, Bury, Coventry as a reason for doing it. They'll patronise us to fuck and say it's for our own good , the only way we can survive.

But sure as my shit stinks, it'll happen

[DirtySanchez]

42 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Of course it can work. As all clubs will be covered by the same rules.

Perhaps any clubs not conforming are hit by points deductions and not just fines. That ends any potential benefits of spending beyond their means.

I'm fairly sure the vast majority would be pleased to not have to fork out stupid money for players: if trying to keep up with the others is crippling them and potentially ending them as a club then there's quite simply no alternative: costs must be cut.

There will be the same draw of the bigger clubs for the better players, and that's vital for income for smaller clubs, all that is required is a fundamental change whereby clubs aren't spending disproportionately large amounts on wages.

There will still be discrepancies in wages between clubs, but if those wages were 'x' lower throughout, but with the same income then there's a benefit for them.

Can't see it happening voluntarily, as some may look to manipulate things for their benefit, so simply more strict governance needed.

At the bottom end, if some clubs' players need to find additional work to supplement their football income then so be it.

No different to an individual with more than one job trying to make ends meet.

Clubs will always find a way round it though. Derby's owner bought the ground off the club then rents it back, Man City have their sponsorship deals with eithad 

There will probably be ways of paying players outside of a wage in terms of bonuses or incentives 

That Boro chairman, may be out of sour grapes, wanted clubs to be more open about their income/spending. No surprise that the other championship chairmen were against it 

[BIGBW]

42 minutes ago, frank_spencer said:

Not just the nfl, all the professional sports leagues (apart from the mls) over there are either the only one or the very pinnacle of the sport so there is no fear of players fucking off to other places. 

Football is a global sport so if the fa/epl bring in salary caps then the players will go play in spain/Italy etc. If UEFA do it then even more players will be off east for mega bucks or to the Americas. 

It would have to be global ruling and I can't see that happening. 

 

Exactly. Salary cap will never work if you intention is to be a dominant force in the sport -- otherwise China would be able to quickly replicate a top league by offering more money. USA sports benefit from being the only top-paying option in each major sport (NFL, NBA, MLB). 

It seems like an impossible problem in many ways:

1. You can't impose a salary cap if you want to remain the top league (or one of the top leagues). 

2. FFP is easy to get around for many clubs, and doesn't seem fit for purpose. But my main gripe is that is further separates bigger and smaller clubs by preventing well-intentioned investment. The clubs that have largest revenue streams at the point of FFP's inception automatically benefit from spending abilities that allow them to move beyond other clubs. 

3. On the other hand, without FFP you have owners who load clubs up with debt in an effort to push forward. If things don't work out, or the owner isn't as rich as he appears, then issues like ours are created. 

4. Many people then want to blame the EFL for poor management of the situation. And while Shaun Harvey is as useless as they come, the EFL is right to assert that in many cases alternative owners are not possible. If no one else wanted to buy us when Holdsworth took over, he was our only option and the EFL had to accept that. The problem is that there aren't enough people willing to throw fortunes away on lower level clubs. The cost of players and salaries is simply too high now to be enjoyable for many multi-millionaires that may have previously considered it. 

Unfortunately, it appears football is a victim of its own success. Its global presence means that England can't dictate it's own rules. It has to deal with a global market if it wants to remain the center of the game. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by BIGBW

[tomski]

9 minutes ago, BIGBW said:

Exactly. Salary cap will never work if you intention is to be a dominant force in the sport -- otherwise China would be able to quickly replicate a top league by offering more money. USA sports benefit from being the only top-paying option in each major sport (NFL, NBA, MLB). 

It seems like an impossible problem in many ways:

1. You can't impose a salary cap if you want to remain the top league (or one of the top leagues). 

2. FFP is easy to get around for many clubs, and doesn't seem fit for purpose. But my main gripe is that is further separates bigger and smaller clubs by preventing well-intentioned investment. The clubs that have largest revenue streams at the point of FFP's inception automatically benefit from spending abilities that allow them to move beyond other clubs. 

3. On the other hand, without FFP you have owners who load clubs up with debt in an effort to push forward. If things don't work out, or the owner isn't as rich as he appears, then issues like ours are created. 

4. Many people then want to blame the EFL for poor management of the situation. And while Shaun Harvey is as useless as they come, the EFL is right to assert that in many cases alternative owners are not possible. If no one else wanted to buy us when Holdsworth took over, he was our only option and the EFL had to accept that. The problem is that there aren't enough people willing to throw fortunes away on lower level clubs. The cost of players and salaries is simply too high now to be enjoyable for many multi-millionaires that may have previously considered it. 

Unfortunately, it appears football is a victim of its own success. Its global presence means that England can't dictate it's own rules. It has to deal with a global market if it wants to remain the center of the game. 

To be honest our football was loads better when we didn’t have the top league ‘being the best’ I’d miss a few players but I’d be happy to let them all go to China if they wanted. 

Used to be really against the salary cap but if they don’t then the FL will collapse

[BIGBW]

1 minute ago, tomski said:

To be honest our football was loads better when we didn’t have the top league ‘being the best’ I’d miss a few players but I’d be happy to let them all go to China if they wanted. 

Used to be really against the salary cap but if they don’t then the FL will collapse

I agree that you don't need to be the best and that the experience can still be just as good, but with a multi-tier system a salary cap might be too hard. 

You would have to have different caps for different tiers of the league. If a team is relegated, it may suddenly have a salary cap that's not eligible, which means that you wouldn't be able to sign players to multi-year contracts effectively. 

On the other hand, if you just had a salary cap for all teams at every level, lower level clubs would still outspend their means. 

[Wullie]

So, how much are we believing today?

[tomski]

24 minutes ago, BIGBW said:

I agree that you don't need to be the best and that the experience can still be just as good, but with a multi-tier system a salary cap might be too hard. 

You would have to have different caps for different tiers of the league. If a team is relegated, it may suddenly have a salary cap that's not eligible, which means that you wouldn't be able to sign players to multi-year contracts effectively. 

On the other hand, if you just had a salary cap for all teams at every level, lower level clubs would still outspend their means. 

Fair point.

[Widnes Two Hats]

6 hours ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Not the chairman the so called Bolton fan Shortland indulging him...

Anybody with #FBPE  after their name automatically wins it

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, DirtySanchez said:

Clubs will always find a way round it though. Derby's owner bought the ground off the club then rents it back, Man City have their sponsorship deals with eithad 

There will probably be ways of paying players outside of a wage in terms of bonuses or incentives 

That Boro chairman, may be out of sour grapes, wanted clubs to be more open about their income/spending. No surprise that the other championship chairmen were against it 

I wouldn't do it as a salary cap, more that a club can only spend a percentage of whatever it takes on wages. Not necessarily restrict transfer fees. No need to hide strange sponsorship deals etc. If you're raking it in, you can spend it.

Obviously someone will try to bend whatever rules there are, and that's where punishment must be tougher.

It's also been mentioned elsewhere that players would go abroad: currently the premier league more than matches wages from other leagues, perhaps with the exception of a handful of clubs- and not everyone can play for them.

Irrespective of such measures though, it's imperative that owners are more thoroughly investigated, and anyone having fucked up before be banned from owning another club.

[Boo]

20 minutes ago, Widnes Two Hats said:

Anybody with #FBPE  after their name automatically wins it

Proper holier than thou, that nobber.