An interesting read regarding players wages and some outrageous facts.

[Mike Hunt]

4 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

But all that would happen is new heroes and superstars would emerge here 

 

Always does 

 

Always will do 

Until they realise they can earn more abroad and leave 

[@owlstalk]

5 minutes ago, Mike Hunt said:

Until they realise they can earn more abroad and leave 

 

And?

 

New heroes emerge 

 

Always will 

 

 

[@owlstalk]

9 minutes ago, soldierboyblue said:

Not anymore but he was for 40 years and it took a player 'coup' to oust him. He's simply undefendable. 

 

Hes irrelevant now 

he’s not at the PFA 

[matthefish2002]

52 minutes ago, A47Owl said:

Isn't TV and particularly Sky responsible for the ridiculous situation. 

You also need to look at the question that if someone offers you a ridiculous amount of money for something, are you going to say, "nah that's too much you can have it for half that". 

 

 

I think its the technology changes that have driven football being more popular than it was a few generations ago and had a knock on effect of players wages rising.

More channels and TV Companies have meant more games being shown on TV and having things like Sky Sports News /Talk Sport / The Internet has increased the hype that surrounds football.

This has attracted multi billionaire owners like the Saudi royal family that can use football to improve they image, other billionaire owners are attracted to use football for an ego boost.

To me its the billionaire owners that are mainly responsible for players wages reaching eye watering levels as to them paying someone £10m per season is just a drop in the ocean.

 

Players wages have had a knock effect on ticket prices but think ticket prices are high mainly because people are prepared to pay those prices.

Even clubs like Newcastle who have not had a chance of winning anything for years, not in a very affluent area of the country can get 50,000 for a run of the mill game. While ever that happens why would clubs charge less for tickets?

[soldierboyblue]

10 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

Hes irrelevant now 

he’s not at the PFA 

Righto - So will the PFA rip up everything he has done and agree to wage caps and other sensible measures. I think you know the answer to that already

[WalworthOwl]

The law of supply and demand is called a “law” for a reason. It's hard to get around it. Why should there be salary caps for footballers any more than for lawyers or bankers?

 

Well there is a reason, it's because football clubs are a community asset, being part of a history and part of a crowd are a lot of the enjoyment in following a club and it would be horrible to lose this. So there is a big argument for government to step in and protect this, similar but bigger than listing pubs as community assets.

 

Football today is more skilful and better to watch, a better day out (except for those wanting a retro experience) than it used to be, and I'm sorry to say it but I think the increase in money has gone with driving up standards. Italian and Spanish clubs used to sign the best players and win most of the European trophies, now it's mostly English clubs.

 

So the government would need to be really careful about how it steps in. Do the majority of fans really want to go back to a 1960s/70s experience? Average crowds were smaller in those days in spite of lower ticket prices, which suggests not.

[matthefish2002]

4 minutes ago, WalworthOwl said:

The law of supply and demand is called a “law” for a reason. It's hard to get around it. Why should there be salary caps for footballers any more than for lawyers or bankers?

 

Well there is a reason, it's because football clubs are a community asset, being part of a history and part of a crowd are a lot of the enjoyment in following a club and it would be horrible to lose this. So there is a big argument for government to step in and protect this, similar but bigger than listing pubs as community assets.

 

Football today is more skilful and better to watch, a better day out (except for those wanting a retro experience) than it used to be, and I'm sorry to say it but I think the increase in money has gone with driving up standards. Italian and Spanish clubs used to sign the best players and win most of the European trophies, now it's mostly English clubs.

 

So the government would need to be really careful about how it steps in. Do the majority of fans really want to go back to a 1960s/70s experience? Average crowds were smaller in those days in spite of lower ticket prices, which suggests not.

 

The problem with salary caps is the big clubs will employ the best legal minds to find ways round them.

FFP / P&S has already been tried which were ways to try and curb clubs spending and they are still big problems.

When Wednesday first encountered problems with the financial rules people were moaning that Chansiri as club owner should be allowed to spend what he wants, fans were only interested in the short term success of they own clubs not for the overall good of the game.

This is something very difficult to get around.

[WalworthOwl]

Salary caps are legally possible, lawyers would find some loopholes but they'd still make a difference and probably end the era of super-rich owners in England.   We should be aware of the knock-on effects though.

 

Obviously any Wednesdayite would love to go back to a football experience of just before the premier league, but we'd probably be in a minority, and there's no guarantee we'd find another Hirst and Waddle if a salary cap came in. 

 

In 91/2 we finished third in the last Division One, but our average crowd was 29,583 which is much less than any third place team gets now.  Would the FA, PL and PFA want to go back to those days?

[prowl]

Top players get top money because clubs crave success. They are prepared to pay outrageous amounts because the owners can afford it, if they couldn't the clubs would go under.

 

TV companies stump up a fortune because they want to show games to the public who are willing to pay to see the games. That's how they make money.

 

Fans pay the money at the gate and in their sky subscription because they want to see games.

 

Until any or all of these factors change players wages will continue increasing. If you limit the amout players can be paid, billionaires will save money, TV companies will make more profit, fans won't get cheaper prices on the gate or for their Sky package, players will get less.

 

Basically it's f****d. 

[soldierboyblue]

23 minutes ago, WalworthOwl said:

Salary caps are legally possible, lawyers would find some loopholes but they'd still make a difference and probably end the era of super-rich owners in England.   We should be aware of the knock-on effects though.

 

Obviously any Wednesdayite would love to go back to a football experience of just before the premier league, but we'd probably be in a minority, and there's no guarantee we'd find another Hirst and Waddle if a salary cap came in. 

 

In 91/2 we finished third in the last Division One, but our average crowd was 29,583 which is much less than any third place team gets now.  Would the FA, PL and PFA want to go back to those days?

Look at Rugby as a whole as to how the salary caps are policed - it results in points losses and in the case of continued abuse ala Saracens relegation

[parajack]

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

 

This is all true

 

So I would point to Hirst and Waddle era and suggest that would be the maximum players should earn and that ticket prices should be reduced to reflect that

 

Since their time all that’s happened is ticket prices have risen to be able to pay the same players we were watching way more money

 

Why? The football and supporting the club has been the exact same. There’s zero difference 

 

If it was referred football would just carry on with matches, promotions, relegations, heroes and villains playing etc 

Money in football has gone crazy BB wages as an example are speculated at £20,000 per week for playing football in Div 3...almost a million quid  PA...now his 'talent' is the same irrespective of what Division we play in, but the financial rewards from the EFL/Sky passed down,much less......

To see fans paying through the nose to follow their team in such circumstances,and now on top of that to potentially have their entire match day routine disrupted to even get into the ground,as a Season ticket holder....

Ground open from 12??...who wants to be in the ground for 2,3 hours before the game starts? rather than in a warm pub,eating & drinking with your mates?

NOT the Clubs fault,but just one more wind up for fans

 

[Willie Henderson]

I have some general questions.

 

How can a club legally spend more on wages than they receive in turnover?

Are they not breaching the Companies Act and trading insolvently?

 

And Derby owe millions in unpaid tax, surely the Directors are failing in their fiduciary duties and are breaking the law?

 

I know football clubs are a bit different to other companies, but they are still companies.

 

Anyone care to enlighten me?

 

[parajack]

17 minutes ago, Willie Henderson said:

I have some general questions.

 

How can a club legally spend more on wages than they receive in turnover?

Are they not breaching the Companies Act and trading insolvently?

 

And Derby owe millions in unpaid tax, surely the Directors are failing in their fiduciary duties and are breaking the law?

 

I know football clubs are a bit different to other companies, but they are still companies.

 

Anyone care to enlighten me?

 

Great Q  

[WalworthOwl]

It is a good question.  Football clubs like any other company have to trade solvently.

 

The latest Wednesday accounts include this statement from the auditors (such statements are present in most club accounts):

 

"Material uncertainty related to going concern

We draw attention to note 1.3 in the financial statements, which indicates that additional funding will be required to enable the company to continue in operational existence. The owner has confirmed that sufficient financial support will be made available to enable the company to meet its obligations as they fall due for a period of not less than 12 months from the date of approval of the financial statements. As stated in note 1.3, the director acknowledges that this support is not legally binding, and these conditions, along with other matters as set forth in note 1.3, indicate that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the company's ability to continue as a going concern. In addition we draw attention to the matters set out in note 26 in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic including the fact that football matches, after resumption, continue to be played behind closed doors and the uncertainties in timescale arising from the pandemic. Our opinion is not modified in respect of these matters"

 

 

 

 

[Willie Henderson]

20 minutes ago, WalworthOwl said:

It is a good question.  Football clubs like any other company have to trade solvently.

 

The latest Wednesday accounts include this statement from the auditors (such statements are present in most club accounts):

 

"Material uncertainty related to going concern

We draw attention to note 1.3 in the financial statements, which indicates that additional funding will be required to enable the company to continue in operational existence. The owner has confirmed that sufficient financial support will be made available to enable the company to meet its obligations as they fall due for a period of not less than 12 months from the date of approval of the financial statements. As stated in note 1.3, the director acknowledges that this support is not legally binding, and these conditions, along with other matters as set forth in note 1.3, indicate that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the company's ability to continue as a going concern. In addition we draw attention to the matters set out in note 26 in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic including the fact that football matches, after resumption, continue to be played behind closed doors and the uncertainties in timescale arising from the pandemic. Our opinion is not modified in respect of these matters"

 

 

 

 

So basically the get out clause is "don't worry, everything will be fine, trust me"

 

That seems a bit rubbish

[WalworthOwl]

9 minutes ago, Willie Henderson said:

So basically the get out clause is "don't worry, everything will be fine, trust me"

 

That seems a bit rubbish

 

It is a bit rubbish, but it's the same for (almost) all clubs.  And what's the alternative for Chansiri?  Letting go the current players and signing a new team who accept less than half the wages would improve the accounts for a year, but I don't think it would be good for the league position... 

 

 

[wilfsmith]

I’m in danger of broadening this discussion to breaking point but couldn’t help noticing this paragraph in today’s press. 
 

“FUTURE has more than doubled the pay package of its chief executive to £8.8m after a string of takeovers helped propel the publisher of Horse and Hound magazine to within sight of the FTSE 100.”

 

We routinely criticise footballers for their salaries, yet others, in other occupations, earn vast sums with little comment. 

[billyblack]

4 hours ago, Ian said:

Anyone who thinks agents get paid too much or do bugger all would be advised to educate themselves more on such matters.

 

Similarly, whilst there will always be subjective individual cases of “players getting paid too much”, overall they don’t.

 

Players get paid what clubs decide they are worth and given the money flowing in to the game which is 99% about those players then it’s probably about right.

 

I’d be interested to know the percentage of Prem and EFL clubs that have gone bust in that 10 year period compared to any other industry

Aye. It's a conundrum ok  I often pity the agents, the colossal effort they put in for the pittance they get back. Its a tough gig alright.

[@owlstalk]

 

 

Imagine trying to defend the grotesque way football has gone though as some have tried to in this thread

 

Imagine that

[trev]

Yeah but if the players didn't get paid all that money they wouldn't pay all that tax.

 

Cha-ching.