Moral Vacuum

[One De Bilde]

9 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Because I cannot understand the logic

Someone sat in their house in Sheffield, isolating during Covid 19 outbreak, decides to point their frustrations at footballers simply because they earn more money than most do.

It defies logic.

What benefit would you see from all our players forfeiting their wages?

None. 

None at all.

So why even think about footballers and how much money they earn?

What about the highly paid bankers who crashed the economy yet still earn eye watering amounts?

Why not target the bankers?

What about the huge bonuses paid to company CEO's whilst they pay people minimum wage or worse?

Why not target those CEO's?

What about the companies like Amazon, Facebook, Starbucks etc who don't pay tax in this country despite making staggering amounts of money from the Uk?

If those companies paid their fair share of tax then this country would be LOADED

Why not focus on those companies? 

The amount you could bring in from those companies just paying their taxes would make footballers wages look like spare change in your pocket.

That's why I can't understand someone sat at home deciding to target footballers and suggesting that somehow giving up their wages would make anything any better.

Makes zero sense to me.

Couldn't agree more. Moronic thinking.

[daveyboy66]

22 minutes ago, sage owl said:

Tories sorting out tax evasion  / avoidance  or as it should be known theft from the state.

Your more likely to see turkeys voting for Christmas to happen twice a year. 

Why were they so anxious to get out of Europe ? Because they are going to start making big businesses pay tax on their profits. They're all bought and paid for...rant over 

 

 

[Tracksuit]

29 minutes ago, sage owl said:

Tories sorting out tax evasion  / avoidance  or as it should be known theft from the state.

Your more likely to see turkeys voting for Christmas to happen twice a year. 

I know mate.

[whatdial]

38 minutes ago, lanzaroteowl said:

 

And spend the next 18 months in court being sued by the players for breach of contract.

 

theyd have to agree to it, yes, but clubs are going to go bust over this when football isn’t back for 18 months

[i used to be sc_owl]

I’ve seen payslips for quite a few professional players; players I had heard of. They are well paid, but the mega-money relates to the elite at the the top of the profession. 
 

Where do you draw the line to say it’s acceptable for one player to be paid but unacceptable for another? 
 

Shaming players diverts attention from the real issue which is the shambolic response of this country to a global disaster. 

[Sergeant Tibbs]

8 hours ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said:

 

 

A former ex is by her side to look after her, he extricated a piece for her defence from a bloke called Arthur. Arthur was the friend of a magic man. They would all gather a round a table of a Sunday afternoon and share lunch together. At this gathering one of Tinks former admirers would pass desirous glances, Peter was his name. Her current Ex was pass looks so alarming, could almost be described as dead Pan !     

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Emerson Thome said:

In general I'm really surprised that so many footballers have pretty flat-rate salaries, occasionally with minor appearance and goal bonuses. I guess its a reflection of their market power.

 

But if I were a Chairman, I'd be trying to get people heavily weighted towards performance rated contracts. I'm happy for them to be generous if the players are playing well - i.e. Fletcher would have earned £50k a week this year (rather than his normal ?30-35k? as he's genuinely been one of the best players in the league, but Westwood, Rhodes, etc, would be on less than £5k (apart from one bumper week for Rhodes). It's not like a normal business where is an executive is only giving 70% then at least they are delivering some of their objectives. If a player is giving less than their best (or they are injured), they get dropped from the team. And if they're not in the team they are basically worthless. You might as well have Tango as have Keiren Westwood, if he's not on the pitch or at least on the bench.

 

I think most would agree with this but the reality is the game is too far down the line to introduce it. 

The basic salary should be a good one but the incentives should be better weighted to encourage peak performance. However, if say half the division took this approach to the wage bill, the 'best' players on paper would more than likely be attracted by better basic salaries at the other half of clubs. This might not work out for a few of the clubs but with the best squads the ones paying the most would have more chance of success.

 

Elements of bonus payments could also affect harmony in the squad if they are not weighted properly. Imagine the strikers can double their basic salary for scoring goals, would some be less inclined to make the right decision in terms of passing or shooting at times? You could make most of the incentives more results based but then if you've got strikers scoring a couple of goals every week but the leaky defence means you keep losing 3-2 they will not be best pleased. 

 

As has been mentioned on the debate around salary caps, if EFL clubs agree to make basic wages more realistic players will look elsewhere if they can make more money abroad and the quality of the competition will decrease. 

 

[billyblack]

15 hours ago, Sergeant Tibbs said:

This situation might arrest the problem, those at the low end of the scale will feel it most.

But those parasites referred to as agents will operate in murky waters. Players will still want away and hold bigger clubs to ransom. 
 

I miss the game and club I grew up with, not what it has become. It doesn’t help that our club is a bag o’poo these days and money is a big part of that.

 

Is it possible that the term furlough means we could be indirectly giving money to the likes of Jordan Rhodes and Kieron Westwood ?

Said this before, agents are the low life of the sport and need eradicating

[billyblack]

5 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

I think most would agree with this but the reality is the game is too far down the line to introduce it. 

The basic salary should be a good one but the incentives should be better weighted to encourage peak performance. However, if say half the division took this approach to the wage bill, the 'best' players on paper would more than likely be attracted by better basic salaries at the other half of clubs. This might not work out for a few of the clubs but with the best squads the ones paying the most would have more chance of success.

 

Elements of bonus payments could also affect harmony in the squad if they are not weighted properly. Imagine the strikers can double their basic salary for scoring goals, would some be less inclined to make the right decision in terms of passing or shooting at times? You could make most of the incentives more results based but then if you've got strikers scoring a couple of goals every week but the leaky defence means you keep losing 3-2 they will not be best pleased. 

 

As has been mentioned on the debate around salary caps, if EFL clubs agree to make basic wages more realistic players will look elsewhere if they can make more money abroad and the quality of the competition will decrease. 

 

So just have a basic salary with a win bonus for the team. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, kobayashi said:

But the madness is of the clubs and owners making. No player ever signed a contract that wasn’t put in front of him by a club. If a club owner is stupid enough to offer an average player £1m per season then don’t expect the player to be stupid enough to turn it down...he won’t and neither would anyone else.

 

Absolutely but it is the owners chasing the promised land that gets the into trouble and they are all as bad as each other. Our finances make dire reading but we have never been in the top 6 in the division in terms of wages in this era. Most clubs spend more than their total revenues on wages alone. They feel the end will justify the means but when only 3 of the 24 clubs can achieve this ultimate success every season it isn't sustainable. 

Some clubs have managed on relatively modest budgets like Huddersfield and United but even the apparently frugal Utd lost over £21M in their promotion season. 

 

The EFL have a responsibility to consider the financial stability of their members and have rules to this effect but how effective are they when many clubs are continually spending beyond their means? The parachute payments relegated clubs are afforded make this even more of an issue.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, billyblack said:

So just have a basic salary with a win bonus for the team. 

 

But if you are a striker paid to score goals and are scoring every week but the rest of your team is sloppy and conceding goals which means you don't win every week you aren't going to be happy. Our squad has been heavily rumoured to have a divided dressing room recently, issues like this would make this far more prevalent. 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

24 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Absolutely but it is the owners chasing the promised land that gets the into trouble and they are all as bad as each other. Our finances make dire reading but we have never been in the top 6 in the division in terms of wages in this era. Most clubs spend more than their total revenues on wages alone. They feel the end will justify the means but when only 3 of the 24 clubs can achieve this ultimate success every season it isn't sustainable. 

Some clubs have managed on relatively modest budgets like Huddersfield and United but even the apparently frugal Utd lost over £21M in their promotion season. 

 

The EFL have a responsibility to consider the financial stability of their members and have rules to this effect but how effective are they when many clubs are continually spending beyond their means? The parachute payments relegated clubs are afforded make this even more of an issue.

Thing is, the ends do justify the means though in this case. If we simplify it and say that everyone in the championship has an equal chance of promotion every season, you’ve a 1/8 chance of going up any one season. It’s widely rumoured that the prize for going up is around £160m when you include all TV money and parachute payments.

 

So in theory, if you lose £20m a season every year then you would on average break even assuming you get promoted once every 8 years.

 

Obviously the odds aren’t even at 1 in 8 because each year there’s maybe 5 clubs who could get top 2 at the start, another 8 that won’t go up as not good enough and then 14 or so chasing the one final play off spot. So it needs adjusting accordingly.

 

But the point is, as long as there are owners who can fund short term cash flow then financial it makes sense to chase the reward within reason. So the business model is always going to be to run it at a loss. Where it breaks down is if teams lose more than what makes sense vs the potential reward, or if owners can no longer fund the losses. Because the losses are ongoing, sizeable and continuous whereas the prize is lumpy and has an unknown time horizon 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Thing is, the ends do justify the means though in this case. If we simplify it and say that everyone in the championship has an equal chance of promotion every season, you’ve a 1/8 chance of going up any one season. It’s widely rumoured that the prize for going up is around £160m when you include all TV money and parachute payments.

 

So in theory, if you lose £20m a season every year then you would on average break even assuming you get promoted once every 8 years.

 

Obviously the odds aren’t even at 1 in 8 because each year there’s maybe 5 clubs who could get top 2 at the start, another 8 that won’t go up as not good enough and then 14 or so chasing the one final play off spot. So it needs adjusting accordingly.

 

But the point is, as long as there are owners who can fund short term cash flow then financial it makes sense to chase the reward within reason. So the business model is always going to be to run it at a loss. Where it breaks down is if teams lose more than what makes sense vs the potential reward, or if owners can no longer fund the losses. Because the losses are ongoing, sizeable and continuous whereas the prize is lumpy and has an unknown time horizon 

 

But as you say the 1 in 8 chance is too simplistic, especially when you have got 3 clubs coming down with a financial advantage every season. 

 

The prize may be around £160M as you say and so the 1 in 8 theory gives the potential to lose £20M a season but that isn't how it works. How many owners stick around for 8 seasons funding circa £20M of losses every year? Plus, the prize might be in the region of £160M but it isn't as simple as writing off the £20M you have lost for 8 seasons with that windfall. Costs are increased, new players are needed and all staff are usually entitled to a hefty pay rise. 

 

You can't feasibly sustain losses of the magnitude Championship clubs on the hope of being promoted in 8 seasons or so. How many years have we been outside the top flight, Leeds, Forest, Derby etc. 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

7 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

But as you say the 1 in 8 chance is too simplistic, especially when you have got 3 clubs coming down with a financial advantage every season. 

 

The prize may be around £160M as you say and so the 1 in 8 theory gives the potential to lose £20M a season but that isn't how it works. How many owners stick around for 8 seasons funding circa £20M of losses every year? Plus, the prize might be in the region of £160M but it isn't as simple as writing off the £20M you have lost for 8 seasons with that windfall. Costs are increased, new players are needed and all staff are usually entitled to a hefty pay rise. 

 

You can't feasibly sustain losses of the magnitude Championship clubs on the hope of being promoted in 8 seasons or so. How many years have we been outside the top flight, Leeds, Forest, Derby etc. 

Ok yeah, so a chunk of the windfall needs to go on the premier league season after promotion. But then you can also factor in if you stay up for one season that’s another £100m of revenue on top.

 

So let’s say half the windfall goes on increased costs.. still makes the baseline loss £10m a season which is a lot of money. But this is why teams are losing in that ball park on average, and why their owners keep funding it to try and chase promotion. I can’t see the business model changing whilever there’s such a wide gap between the money on offer in the PL and championship  

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Ok yeah, so a chunk of the windfall needs to go on the premier league season after promotion. But then you can also factor in if you stay up for one season that’s another £100m of revenue on top.

 

So let’s say half the windfall goes on increased costs.. still makes the baseline loss £10m a season which is a lot of money. But this is why teams are losing in that ball park on average, and why their owners keep funding it to try and chase promotion. I can’t see the business model changing whilever there’s such a wide gap between the money on offer in the PL and championship  

 

Not sure only half goes towards costs and improvements.

In the 2017-18 season the 3 clubs promoted to the PL recorded profits at the end of the their first season in the PL of £130M between them, so around £43M each. 

In the season they got promoted, they had combined losses of £107M, around £36M each. 

 

So their finances improved by £80M in 1 season but they only had around £7M of profit on average when taking the promotion season and first season in the PL together. Imagine it had taken these clubs the 8 seasons or so you reference to get promoted with these losses. 

 

Even if they stay up the data suggests it is difficult to maintain the profits of the first season in the PL as costs go up more than revenue increases in a bid to stay up or improve position.

 

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/sports-business-group/deloitte-uk-annual-review-of-football-finance-2019.pdf