Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

£2.5m is just stupidly low.

I expect that figure is based on how tight things are at the moment and will slowly creep up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

£2.5m is just stupidly low. Portsmouth had about 60% wages to turnover but to meet the cap they’d have had to reduce their wages to players by two thirds. 

Even Peterborough, which I don’t think anyone would claim is run in an unsustainable fashion would have to half their wage budget. 

There already is a technical wage cap in the EFL with FFP - while this is not working out as well as it could be - a salary cap will be beset with the same issues of ‘creative accounting’. 

Yeah I agree it is too low but I personally prefer caps to FFP. FFP just locks in financial advantages rather than leveling the playing field.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

I think it might help them actually as it creates a more level playing field.

I can see promotion bonuses being on a heavily deferred basis so they would payable in the next league up, when presumably a higher cap applies. A promotion bonus to say an Accrington player might not be worth as much in real terms than say a Sunderland player.

I wonder how a newly relegated EPL team like ourselves would fair with a salary cap in the Championship?

I cant see how this could be good for Ipswich?...the are still one of the bigger clubs in that league (just)...and ,even though he hasn't for many a season , still have a wealthy owner who could put money into the squad.

The fact that they cant pay their squad any more than the likes of Northampton or Accrington can only surely hamper them?

In a league where they already had to finish above 5 of Hull Charlton Wigan Sunderland Portsmouth Peterborough to ensure automatic promotion , this can't help.

How I'd love for them to become a permenant fixture at this level (or worse) for the next 6 seasons or so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point having a rich owner then. They will all become self financing mutuals like us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

I cant see how this could be good for Ipswich?...the are still one of the bigger clubs in that league (just)...and ,even though he hasn't for many a season , still have a wealthy owner who could put money into the squad.

The fact that they cant pay their squad any more than the likes of Northampton or Accrington can only surely hamper them?

In a league where they already had to finish above 5 of Hull Charlton Wigan Sunderland Portsmouth Peterborough to ensure automatic promotion , this can't help.

How I'd love for them to become a permenant fixture at this level (or worse) for the next 6 seasons or so

You might actually get your wish. It will be a strange season to come behind closed doors and if they don't start well. Agent Lambert will then continue in quite a marvellous vein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Felixfan said:

No point having a rich owner then. They will all become self financing mutuals like us.

Well yeah, hopefully. 

It would be lovely if having your football club living within its means wasn't a barrier to competitivness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

Sorry, but in my personal opinion, NO entertainer/sportsperson should be getting paid more in a week than most earn in 2-3 years of work.

Why only apply this to sports stars and entertainers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

Sorry, but in my personal opinion, NO entertainer/sportsperson should be getting paid more in a week than most earn in 2-3 years of work.

If you got offered the chance to move company and double your wage you’d do it so your point is a bit hypercritical.  We’d all love to earn that sort of money and if it was offered to us we’d make sure we enjoyed it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Badger said:

Why only apply this to sports stars and entertainers?

Because I can see actual value in critical job roles such as Doctors, Nurses, Fireman etc, who are FAR more deserving of significant wages, rather than actors, singers or blokes who kick a ball of wind around.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jersey Canary said:

If you got offered the chance to move company and double your wage you’d do it so your point is a bit hypercritical.  We’d all love to earn that sort of money and if it was offered to us we’d make sure we enjoyed it too.

How about responding to the actual point instead Jersey?

I have no problem with ANYONE looking to maximise their wages or change company if they feel it will be beneficial to their career or indeed personal life, but I do firmly believe a line needs to be drawn in the sand at some point.

Anyone with half a brain would love to earn the sort of money these guys are on, but that doesn't make it right, doesn't make it reasonable and doesn't make it acceptable either.

Even at 'just' 10k a week, that's still WAY more than most people earn in a year in just 3 weeks, I'm not really sure what about this you think is justified in any sense???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

Sorry, but in my personal opinion, NO entertainer/sportsperson should be getting paid more in a week than most earn in 2-3 years of work.

There HAS to be a sensible limit, and clearly we've gone WELL past that at present.

While totally agree with your last point, the former is taking this into it being a moral question, which it isn't

I x number of people want to pay x amount of money to purchase tickets to see an entertainer then that is fine. But that is not what is the case here, where we are seeing football clubs paying more and more above the income - often to merely stand still. That can only ever end one way, and so this is an attempt to put the brakes on, while there still is a chance,

And for this to work it cannot be done unilaterally - it requires all clubs within agreed divisions to adhere to the same rule.

And Accrington Stanley can produce a better football team than Sunderland, then the fault lies with the latter

I suspect the figure set is based on what a fair number of those lower league clubs now they can afford, if the want to stay a going concern. And for those who are in those divisions and oppose a salary cap at this level I would suggest they have a long think about what point would a seven club L1 serve

Because at the moment this is not about some kind of 'level playing field', it is about whether L1/L2 are still with us by the seasons halfway mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£60,000 a year to kick a bag of air around in League 2 sounds pretty good to me (£100,000 p.a in League 1). Footballers need to 'adjust' their salary expectations rather than just ripping off the local community!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are of course part of the entertainment industry and it is going to be difficult to impose a wages ceiling. The best performers will always command better deals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Felixfan said:

They are of course part of the entertainment industry and it is going to be difficult to impose a wages ceiling. The best performers will always command better deals.

really ..... who would have thought that ?

However, whatever is paid is determined by the money they generate through sales of tickets, music, merchandise etc - it is not through the promoter or venue borrowing way beyond their means to engage their services, otherwise both would go bankrupt very quickly

As will be the case very soon, unless the drastic cuts in income the virus has caused are not addressed

 

 

ps those want to see just how stupid the binners are over this need look no further than the comments below the story

https://www.twtd.co.uk/ipswich-town-news/38484/clubs-vote-in-favour-of-salary-cap/page:2/#comm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

Because I can see actual value in critical job roles such as Doctors, Nurses, Fireman etc, who are FAR more deserving of significant wages, rather than actors, singers or blokes who kick a ball of wind around.

I agree of course, but this doesn't answer the question. You said,

"NO entertainer/sportsperson should be getting paid more in a week than most earn in 2-3 years of work."

Doctors, firemen, nurses etc are simply not in that category - their wages are nowhere near this level - they are not even high earners (with the exception of the occasional consultant/ private doctor ). 

So again for clarity, why do you rule out entertainers and sportspersons out of the group og the very highly paid, but not others occupations - why just entertainers and sportspersons?

 

 

image.gif.366cd1d054bcaaa85eea7556cbad8363.gifimage.gif.74a3634ba72f6899eed19ac8838a2698.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I agree of course, but this doesn't answer the question. You said,

"NO entertainer/sportsperson should be getting paid more in a week than most earn in 2-3 years of work."

Doctors, firemen, nurses etc are simply not in that category - their wages are nowhere near this level - they are not even high earners (with the exception of the occasional consultant/ private doctor ). 

So again for clarity, why do you rule out entertainers and sportspersons out of the group og the very highly paid, but not others occupations - why just entertainers and sportspersons?image.gif.366cd1d054bcaaa85eea7556cbad8363.gifimage.gif.74a3634ba72f6899eed19ac8838a2698.gif

Because footballers and entertainers don’t contribute to society other than accumulating and spending wealth. Sure a lot contribute to charities etc, but so would more doctors/nurses/firemen etc if they got paid more.

It’s not just those groups of course, FTSE 100 boss wages are so far out of whack with their employees it’s unreal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Because footballers and entertainers don’t contribute to society other than accumulating and spending wealth. Sure a lot contribute to charities etc, but so would more doctors/nurses/firemen etc if they got paid more.

It’s not just those groups of course, FTSE 100 boss wages are so far out of whack with their employees it’s unreal.

I've highlighted the main point. the wages of firefighters/ nurses etc is irrelevant - they are broadly average earners. It is the fact that only sports stars and entertainers who should be included in Indy's wage cap that I objected to. There are many, many others who earn far more and are generally totally parasitic on society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Badger said:

I've highlighted the main point. the wages of firefighters/ nurses etc is irrelevant - they are broadly average earners. It is the fact that only sports stars and entertainers who should be included in Indy's wage cap that I objected to. There are many, many others who earn far more and are generally totally parasitic on society.

Badger, just because I've not provided an exhaustive list of exactly which fields and professions, doesn't make my view regarding sportspeople and entertainers irrelevant.

My argument is simply that I don't think ANYONE needs to be paid such obscene amounts, but that if anyone was deserving of the highest levels of pay, it should be those that actively contribute to society as a whole on a constant and daily basis, hence Doctors, Nurses, Firemen etc.

We put far too much bias towards entertainment as a species, whilst happily ignoring the professions that will truly help and benefit us longer term. Players kicking a ball around isn't going to help if I'm desperately in need of brain surgery or a bypass operation, it's not going to help if my house is burning down with my family trapped inside, yet apparently these players are deemed more worthy of high (note, ridiculous) wages than the people who keep us alive and will help us advance as a species.

If you want to include numerous other professions that are making absolute fortunes, that's fine and understandable, but we were discussing a salary cap in football, and my opinion stands that no 'entertainer' should be getting paid these sums, but doesn't preclude the view that I don't think others should be either, but in the context of the thread, those others weren't directly relevant.

I hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Indy_Bones said:

Badger, just because I've not provided an exhaustive list of exactly which fields and professions, doesn't make my view regarding sportspeople and entertainers irrelevant.

My argument is simply that I don't think ANYONE needs to be paid such obscene amounts, but that if anyone was deserving of the highest levels of pay, it should be those that actively contribute to society as a whole on a constant and daily basis, hence Doctors, Nurses, Firemen etc.

We put far too much bias towards entertainment as a species, whilst happily ignoring the professions that will truly help and benefit us longer term. Players kicking a ball around isn't going to help if I'm desperately in need of brain surgery or a bypass operation, it's not going to help if my house is burning down with my family trapped inside, yet apparently these players are deemed more worthy of high (note, ridiculous) wages than the people who keep us alive and will help us advance as a species.

If you want to include numerous other professions that are making absolute fortunes, that's fine and understandable, but we were discussing a salary cap in football, and my opinion stands that no 'entertainer' should be getting paid these sums, but doesn't preclude the view that I don't think others should be either, but in the context of the thread, those others weren't directly relevant.

I hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make better.

Thanks Indy. I agree withthe following:

"My argument is simply that I don't think ANYONE needs to be paid such obscene amounts"

My objection is that this is often said about footballers/ entertainers but not applied to others who are are less deserving - inherited wealth; huge wages for having the right contacts, hedge fund managers etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IB. you are overlooking where the money comes from

with entertainers, as said, they have to a degree generated to money they have earned - ticket sales etc - no festivals, no concerts.... no pay

that is not the same with the football wage cap - in fact it is almost the opposite in the lower leagues where there is now a growing disparity between wage levels and the income they earn for their employers (clubs)

unless it is brought back in line with revenue generated then there is every likelihood that much of that employment will disappear - that what this cap is about at the moment

not 'fairness', nor any moral question - but stark and blunt survival for  those leagues

shops are closing down because of a lowering of trade - how on earth are football clubs going to survive with NO trade ie paying customers ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bill said:

IB. you are overlooking where the money comes from

with entertainers, as said, they have to a degree generated to money they have earned - ticket sales etc - no festivals, no concerts.... no pay

Only to a certain point though Bill.

You can only sell the seats you have, and we consistently manage to sell all our seats, so adding an Ozil or Sanchez into our squad isn't going to bring us anymore in via ticket sales (it may increase the ST waiting list), but could bring in more indirectly through shirt sales etc, but nowhere near the 350-400k per week wages that those guys are/were on.

25k seats at say £30 a go is 750k, so just those two players alone would eat up our entire income from matchday tickets, never mind the other 20 or so players in the squad on top of that, so in that respect, they simply wouldn't be generating the money they are being paid, and likely never will at those rates.

In terms of say musicians, they may charge £100 per ticket for an event, but they don't see that full amount, nor are they getting paid a weekly wage regardless of whether or not they are actually performing (other income is via royalties, merch, record deals etc), so it's not even a fair apples to apples comparison even in the entertainment field itself, and as you say, no shows, no performances, no album sales = no cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

Badger, just because I've not provided an exhaustive list of exactly which fields and professions, doesn't make my view regarding sportspeople and entertainers irrelevant.

My argument is simply that I don't think ANYONE needs to be paid such obscene amounts, but that if anyone was deserving of the highest levels of pay, it should be those that actively contribute to society as a whole on a constant and daily basis, hence Doctors, Nurses, Firemen etc.

We put far too much bias towards entertainment as a species, whilst happily ignoring the professions that will truly help and benefit us longer term. Players kicking a ball around isn't going to help if I'm desperately in need of brain surgery or a bypass operation, it's not going to help if my house is burning down with my family trapped inside, yet apparently these players are deemed more worthy of high (note, ridiculous) wages than the people who keep us alive and will help us advance as a species.

If you want to include numerous other professions that are making absolute fortunes, that's fine and understandable, but we were discussing a salary cap in football, and my opinion stands that no 'entertainer' should be getting paid these sums, but doesn't preclude the view that I don't think others should be either, but in the context of the thread, those others weren't directly relevant.

I hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make better.

Don’t forget these people pay copious amounts of Income Tax and National Insurance which goes towards the NHS etc.  Because they earn more they spend more which means they pay a bucket load of VAT on their Ferrari’s etc. Stamp Duty on their mansions.  The clubs themselves will have to pay employers National Insurance as well so that will all add up to a pretty penny.

If we introduced a Salary cap in the PL the top players would go and play somewhere else and rather than have a large percentage of something we would have achieved 100% of nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jersey Canary said:

 If we introduced a Salary cap in the PL the top players would go and play somewhere else and rather than have a large percentage of something we would have achieved 100% of nothing.

That's why it would have to be worldwide , from the top down ie Fifa, otherwise we would probably end up with all top level footy being played in Qatar in air conditioned stadiums , cant see it though, worldwide wage cap thats is , Turkeys dont generally vote for Christmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said for ages that this should be done but with named 'star players'. I think that's how it is done in the US, could be wrong.

So you have your club salary cap, but you can, say, name up to three star players who's wages can exceed the cap. The star player contract part of their salary in any case.

That gives a little flexibility and also the chance for clubs to try and keep hold of a player or two to make them upwardly progressive.

Otherwise I can see it just making signing players from lower leagues even easier, especially if the Championship and Premier League don't follow suit. The disparity between those two leagues alone are huge, even within them.

Some Championship players are on £5k a week, others are on £40k+. In the prem, some are on £20-30k per week, then you have those at top 6 clubs on over £200k per week... I cannot see the premier league agreeing to anything of this sort and so I simply can't see it lasting in the lower divisions.

That's without considering how leagues abroad operate. They may also see our leagues as a good place to shop. Players have all the power as it is at the moment. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree societies values are skewed but the top entertainers in any sport or profession will always command more income because we want to see them. Not only footballers but actors,musicians,golfers,tennis players,formula 1 etc.etc. The public will always pay to see the best and consequently raises the bar for those not in the top tier.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/08/2020 at 16:30, king canary said:

Maybe but I do wonder what the PFA/players think is the long term solution to financial issues in the lower leagues.

Most clubs outside of the Premier League make losses and their biggest expenditure is always player wages. Bringing those down is the only way to actually have a real impact.

As long as you have owners with vast pockets the EPL will not have any salary caps. It's a sensible idea but just can not see it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

That's why it would have to be worldwide , from the top down ie Fifa, otherwise we would probably end up with all top level footy being played in Qatar in air conditioned stadiums , cant see it though, worldwide wage cap thats is , Turkeys dont generally vote for Christmas.

Well that's the big problem isn't it.  If only English leagues imposed a wage cap you would go back to the pre Premier Leagues days of the best British talent going to play in Spain, Italy, France and Germany.  It would have to come from FIFA and be worldwide to work but considering the lifestyle that comes with being a top FIFA exec it would be, as you say, like Turkeys voting for Xmas.  Beyond that is the big clubs as well.  PSG, Juventus and Bayern are not going to want to give up the stranglehold they have on their respective leagues.  Same goes for Barca and Real Madrid who get the lions share of Spanish TV monies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, seanthecanary said:

Well that's the big problem isn't it.  If only English leagues imposed a wage cap you would go back to the pre Premier Leagues days of the best British talent going to play in Spain, Italy, France and Germany.

Except that in those days (and most of the earlier years of the Prem), very few British players left to play abroad, and they often came back within a year or two anyway.

I wouldn't be scared about young talented players going abroad, I'd be more concerned about the world's best players choosing to shun playing in the UK purely because they could get twice as much cash in Spain, Italy etc.

Just a shame that most PL clubs won't give our youth players a genuine chance (yet hoard numerous overseas youngsters) but then have the nerve to get frustrated when they leave for regular football on the continent - see Sancho, Pogba et al!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Indy_Bones said:

Except that in those days (and most of the earlier years of the Prem), very few British players left to play abroad, and they often came back within a year or two anyway.

I wouldn't be scared about young talented players going abroad, I'd be more concerned about the world's best players choosing to shun playing in the UK purely because they could get twice as much cash in Spain, Italy etc.

Just a shame that most PL clubs won't give our youth players a genuine chance (yet hoard numerous overseas youngsters) but then have the nerve to get frustrated when they leave for regular football on the continent - see Sancho, Pogba et al!

I think British players going abroad and top foreign players not coming here would both really the same thing, the consequence of having a salary cap here and nowhere else.  

Agree about the hoarding of youngsters both from home or overseas.  The way I see it though is that it's just another method to keep their superiority.  I mentioned in a thread yesterday about the players like Crook, Bowen, Culverhouse and Polston we picked up from Spurs.  All of those players became important for us and were a big part of the best City side in my lifetime.  Spurs would not let us sign those players today, especially for the peanuts we paid.  They would be loaned to us and having proved to be good players would go back to Spurs as part of their squad or with their reputations enhanced enough to be out of our price range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...