Jump to content

THE EFL HEARING THREAD


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, room0035 said:

But he's not investing capital in the business he's wasting million in players wages.

 

No business survives when their wage bill is nearly double their turnover.

 

We need controls so chairman don't use football teams as play things to then throw away when their bored.

 

You let DC spend what he wants, in a few years we will have £100m wage bill and still be no nearer the premier lesgue. If he leaves we then cease to exist as a football club after 150+ years because we cannot afford to pay the mess he has left us in. This happens if the EFL decided to let him spend what he wants.

 

It's a no from me thanks, tighter controls on spending not loosening.

 

How many clubs have suffered from this scenario? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pat blondeau said:


So is Gary Neville saying if you had a squad of 25 players all on £20m contracts the owner would have to put £1 billion in an escrow account to cover it all?

 

What happens to a club where the owner isn’t prepared to do that? Can’t they sign any players?

 

Majority of football clubs live hand to mouth 

No, I assume he's saying start it now. So any new signings, contracts, bonuses have to be paid upfront into an escrow fund. Reduce the power of agents and wages demands. Bring the whole thing back down to a manageable level, lower the drain of money out of the game. 

 

I'd also add a 30% tax levy on all transfer fees, and 20% of wages, that goes to grass roots and youth football. 

Edited by Hotten Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Animis said:

 

I assume the EFL already know if we've broken the 3-yr £39m level.

 

The last two years show loss of £20.8 and profit of £2.6m so we have to keep below £20.8m - is this how you see it?

 

On the basis we lost £23.7m in 2017/18 before the stadium sale, I imagine it's going be tight

As I understand it we lost closer to £36m in 17/18 before sale of ground baled us out.  I can’t see how we possibly stay within £39m limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hitcat said:

 

PFA probably just as corrupt as the rest of them. 

I think agents have a job to do but considering they are acting for and on behalf of their particular player then it should be the player that remunerates their agent out of there own pocket.

its absolutely crazy that a club should have to cough up hundreds of thousand or even millions when he agent is affiliated to the player.

Clubs having to pay millions to agents is ludicrous 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bolton9owl said:

I think agents have a job to do but considering they are acting for and on behalf of their particular player then it should be the player that remunerates their agent out of there own pocket.

its absolutely crazy that a club should have to cough up hundreds of thousand or even millions when he agent is affiliated to the player.

Clubs having to pay millions to agents is ludicrous 

 

 

I still want to know what work they actually do.  Most contracts will be pretty much of a muchness just a question of working out the wages and bonuses and a couple of hours meeting over dinner should sort most of it out.  

 

Money for old rope. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, A12owl said:

Absolutely 100%.

The vulture(agent) is working and retained by the player. It should be the player who pays the agent fees NOT the club. Another footballing anomaly which costs a club a lot of money. 

You'd be surprised how often agents are working for clubs and not players

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kobayashi said:

It makes sense if you have never run a business. No business owner of any type would accept to operate in this manner...it cuts right across the concepts of going concern and limited liability.

Most football clubs are already run against the concepts of a going concern!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pat blondeau said:


So is Gary Neville saying if you had a squad of 25 players all on £20m contracts the owner would have to put £1 billion in an escrow account to cover it all?

 

What happens to a club where the owner isn’t prepared to do that? Can’t they sign any players?

 

Majority of football clubs live hand to mouth 

What happens if they arent prepared to do that is that they cant sign those players that they arent prepared to Escrow the money for.....if they refuse they are basically saying Im not sure I can afford those wages so why would you let them sign up for them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pat blondeau said:


Do you think there’s football club owners with hundreds of millions sat in cash they’d be happy to put in an escrow account?

If they want to sign players on contracts worth that much then they'd need to.....simple as

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ian said:

If they want to sign players on contracts worth that much then they'd need to.....simple as

Virtually every club chairman would have to be a multi millionaire. Maybe some sort of fixed fee put aside to put off the chancers, but as started above dont think many chairman would put entire squads contract values at one time in a fund they just wont have that kind of disposable income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, A12owl said:

Players agent and club agents. Different animals. 

That's possibly true but why should a club pay a players agent to agree a contract which the player gets money not the club. 

They aren't different animals

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

Virtually every club chairman would have to be a multi millionaire. Maybe some sort of fixed fee put aside to put off the chancers, but as started above dont think many chairman would put entire squads contract values at one time in a fund they just wont have that kind of disposable income.

or sign players on sustainable contracts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ian said:

or sign players on sustainable contracts

My point is more that even if that was the case then the club would generate probably 50 or 60% of the wages for the season over the course of it, so why does a chairman have to put 100% in a pot first.

Edited by pazowl55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...