Finance experts "The problem is NOT how money is distributed within the English game"

[Guest]

Just now, @owlstalk said:

Kinda makes any debate pointless if you're just gonna drop that bomb on it every post

 

Do you disagree? 

Do you expect parachute payments will be stopped any time soon? 

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Do you disagree? 

Do you expect parachute payments will be stopped any time soon? 

Let's say I suggest that it might be possible to stop the parachute payments and go with a 70% wage cap

You'll just post how "The EFL dances to the PL tune and parachute payments are unlikely to disappear any time soon"

Therefore you killed the debate

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, @owlstalk said:

Let's say I suggest that it might be possible to stop the parachute payments and go with a 70% wage cap

You'll just post how "The EFL dances to the PL tune and parachute payments are unlikely to disappear any time soon"

Therefore you killed the debate

 

 

 

But the debate and solution to the issue hinges around whether parachute payments will continue.

 

If you want to have a pie in the sky discussion and ignore the elephant in the room then fine, crack on. Unless you think there is any feasible reason why the PL will stop making parachute payments any time soon?

[@owlstalk]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 

But the debate and solution to the issue hinges around whether parachute payments will continue.

 

If you want to have a pie in the sky discussion and ignore the elephant in the room then fine, crack on. Unless you think there is any feasible reason why the PL will stop making parachute payments any time soon?

 

Mate you've killed the debate stone cold dead

There's no coming back from it

It's gone. Dead. Deceased.

This is a deceased debate

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

Mate you've killed the debate stone cold dead

There's no coming back from it

It's gone. Dead. Deceased.

This is a deceased debate

 

 

 

Sorry, blame the Premier League, not me - don't shoot the messenger for reporting the facts!

 

[the third man]

The EFL could be in charge if they wanted to, they could say that they wont accept any team into the EFL who have parachute payments

 

the teams that would block this would be the Championship clubs, because there would be no promotion

 

so the clubs that would block this wouldn't be the PL clubs but the EFL clubs who want promotion to the PL

 

the alternative is that parachute money is not included in the income figures, but then the PL clubs would not want that

 

the ball is in the EFLs court, but we all know what the outcome will be, clubs want to be promoted to the PL, so any wage cap will include parachute payments

Edited June 13, 2020 by the third man

[Animis]

The key to this is the will of the majority to implement sustainable changes. Whilst the riches of the EPL offer a gold bounty at the end of the football rainbow, you'll have at least half of the Championship club owners breaching FFP to get their hands on it.

 

Mike Ashley won't buy a Championship club to run a financially prudent model will he? He will pile money in for two years essentially buying him a place in the EPL.

[Guest wilyfox]

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

70% wage cap with any team caught breaching it getting immediately relegated = problem sorted immediately

 

That's so naive. Bath time. 

[Utah Owl]

1 hour ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said:

Football is the product not premiership football . The FA which was the ruling body has taken it's eye off the ball and the ruling body status is in the dust bin.

 

The Government could change it but won't. The only answer has to be the intervention of the fans but the FSA and the FSF have little impact in imposing any real influence. No unity amongst the EFL clubs either as they all follow their individual self interest. What the EFL must do is flex their muscles regarding spending from any external source either by blocking  parachute payment spending or perhaps handing out penalty points deductions pro rata  to the parachute payments;  in effect a handicap system.

 

Another alternative would be to break away from any relationship with the premiership and sell games packages to World Wide TV. The FA to charge high end membership fees. But no the EFL the FA just suck it up ! 

 

I would just add that ruling bodies should be opened up to ordinary fans, that is the real ownership of the game.

Trouble is Nev nothing will change without Government intervention. Several things the game needs to make it sustainable and fair are:

 

1. Salary caps in all divisions

2. Automatic clauses in contracts that if a team is relegated the players salary drops accordingly

3. Distribution of television monies to be controlled by a truly independent body

4. No parachute payments

5. Mandatory 51% ownership of a club by it's relevant supporters trust

6. As clubs are British community assets, no investment by foreign owners

7. The controlling bodies of the game to have mandatory fan representation on their boards

8. Expulsion powers and penalties to be ramped up for those breaching the rules

9. An independent review panel to sit every decade (minimum) to recommend any changes that might be needed. The game is not static and the financial rules will need changing from time to time

[Sham67]

A salary cap is a good idea in principle.  However, it will only work if failure payments are removed.

[Inspector Lestrade]

15 minutes ago, Utah Owl said:

Trouble is Nev nothing will change without Government intervention. Several things the game needs to make it sustainable and fair are:

 

1. Salary caps in all divisions

2. Automatic clauses in contracts that if a team is relegated the players salary drops accordingly

3. Distribution of television monies to be controlled by a truly independent body

4. No parachute payments

5. Mandatory 51% ownership of a club by it's relevant supporters trust

6. As clubs are British community assets, no investment by foreign owners

7. The controlling bodies of the game to have mandatory fan representation on their boards

8. Expulsion powers and penalties to be ramped up for those breaching the rules

9. An independent review panel to sit every decade (minimum) to recommend any changes that might be needed. The game is not static and the financial rules will need changing from time to time

 

Wouldn't half of that be against the law? And whose going to buy all these clubs from the foreign owners?

 

 

[pazowl55]

16 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Wouldn't half of that be against the law? And whose going to buy all these clubs from the foreign owners?

 

 

Can you imagine how much money they would want for Man U or Man City easily a billion pound.

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 minute ago, pazowl55 said:

Can you imagine how much money they would want for Man U or Man City easily a billion pound.

 

You can probably double that for Wednesday.

 

 

 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

Our revenue in the last set of accounts is £25m. So a 70% salary cap is a wage bill of £17.5m. Let's say that £3.5m of that goes on managerial, coaching and backroom staff salaries, plus youth player salaries. That leaves a first team player wage bill of £14m across a squad of 25 say. Or a little over half a million each, £11k a week per player.

 

In theory that should be doable but then realistically you're looking at your squad players being on £5k a week and your top earners being on no more than £15-20k a week.

 

I'd guess that across the board ours are all on about double what the theoretical limits would be.

 

The problem is that you just can't implement it while you have a huge revenue discrepancy between parachute payment clubs and others. Because we have to pay £30-40k a week for the best strikers when that money is available from the competition. The whole system needs changing and its the Premier League that are responsible for it by not implementing relegation wage drops or spreading the parachute payments across the whole division.

 

I can't see it changing though because they will argue that if their clubs are forced to put in relegation wage reduction clauses or they don't have the comfort blanket of guaranteed money on relegation, then the lower end clubs won't be able to take the risk of trying to sign the better players, or the better players won't risk coming to a bottom half club. So the disparity within the Premier League would increase as a result. 

 

Basically the current system suits the Premier League as a product and makes it more competitive but it ruins the Championship and their clubs finances. Can't see it changing tbh

[Yellowbelly]

2 hours ago, Animis said:

 

Agreed - it's going to happen at some point. There's a 18-club supper-league just waiting to split off and play when they want. I even think the players playing in this league for £200/week won't even play for their country, because the risks and clashes with the super-league fixtures will be too great. We already have players 'retiring' from international football to prolong their club career - this never used to happen.

 

Media is controlling all sport - look at the Fury / Joshua fight. Openly brokered by a widely recognized international criminal with Sky support. There is no way that any limp-wristed authorities like FIFA/Uefa/FA will ever stop this kind of power. 

 

 

The threat of a super league has been around for years and they’ve never actually done it. Wonder why?

If your Juve (for example) and you win your domestic league every year, you're the richest and most successful team in that league & you can buy any player you want from your domestic opponents why would you give that up to enter a league with another 10-15 clubs that are as good, if not better than you AND have the same financial clout as you? All of a sudden your not first every year - your 3rd, or 7th or 10th.

Thats why a super league will NEVER happen - in whatever league you play in someone has to finish bottom.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Yellowbelly

[room0035]

As many as 15 clubs in the championship and below currently have parachute payments, were these figures removed from the turnover as sure even if it only £10m each that 15% of the total turnover figure. I believe West Brom, Cardiff Huddersfield, Fulham are receiving closer to £40m.

[the third man]

5 minutes ago, Yellowbelly said:

The threat of a super league has been around for years and they’ve never actually done it. Wonder why?

If your Juve (for example) and you win your domestic league every year, your the richest land most successful team in that league & you can buy any player you want from your domestic opponents why would you give that up to enter a league with another 10-15 clubs that are as good, if not better than you AND have the same financial clout as you? All of a sudden your not first every year - your 3rd, or 7th or 10th.

Thats why a super league will NEVER happen - in whatever league you play in someone has to finish bottom.

Finishing bottom wont be a problem for owners if they are paid enough to finish there, wouldn't be a normal relegation probably more like you have to pass a reselection board

[room0035]

19 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Our revenue in the last set of accounts is £25m. So a 70% salary cap is a wage bill of £17.5m. Let's say that £3.5m of that goes on managerial, coaching and backroom staff salaries, plus youth player salaries. That leaves a first team player wage bill of £14m across a squad of 25 say. Or a little over half a million each, £11k a week per player.

 

In theory that should be doable but then realistically you're looking at your squad players being on £5k a week and your top earners being on no more than £15-20k a week.

 

I'd guess that across the board ours are all on about double what the theoretical limits would be.

 

The problem is that you just can't implement it while you have a huge revenue discrepancy between parachute payment clubs and others. Because we have to pay £30-40k a week for the best strikers when that money is available from the competition. The whole system needs changing and its the Premier League that are responsible for it by not implementing relegation wage drops or spreading the parachute payments across the whole division.

 

I can't see it changing though because they will argue that if their clubs are forced to put in relegation wage reduction clauses or they don't have the comfort blanket of guaranteed money on relegation, then the lower end clubs won't be able to take the risk of trying to sign the better players, or the better players won't risk coming to a bottom half club. So the disparity within the Premier League would increase as a result. 

 

Basically the current system suits the Premier League as a product and makes it more competitive but it ruins the Championship and their clubs finances. Can't see it changing tbh

salary caps never work when based on turnover because the London clubs charge more or teams find ways to unfairly inflate their turnover.

 

every team in the league should have a players budget to include, fees, salaries, bonus the best run and organised teams such as the Brentford will rise to the top the worse run such as us, derby, villa, Fulham will have to change or slowly fall down the league.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

1 minute ago, room0035 said:

salary caps never work when based on turnover because the London clubs charge more or teams find ways to unfairly inflate their turnover.

 

every team in the league should have a players budget to include, fees, salaries, bonus the best run and organised teams such as the Brentford will rise to the top the worse run such as us, derby, villa, Fulham will have to change or slowly fall down the league.

I don't think its regional.. I mean we aren't in London and we're charging more than most if not all of the London clubs. As for inflating turnover, you'd have rules around what can and can't be included to get around that.

 

I think clubs should be able to spend what they want, but if a players salary is over and above what the budgeted turnover pays for then the owner has to put the extra money into escrow to make sure there's no financial problems down the line.

[Yellowbelly]

7 minutes ago, the third man said:

Finishing bottom wont be a problem for owners if they are paid enough to finish there, wouldn't be a normal relegation probably more like you have to pass a reselection board

Yeah, but it’s not about relegation, it’s about glory and the rewards for success. What’s the global fan base going to look like for a club who finishes bottom half of the table every year? They’ve suddenly gone from being serial winners to being the Burnley of the super league. Yes, they’re rich but they were rich before. And every year someone else wins the league they just get smaller. What club would swap bring big fish in little ponds to being also-rans?