Premier League Clubs - Discussion On Spending Limits

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Yellow Wall"]Indy - it was a long time ago in this thread but nevertheless I would like to say that I fully agree with your suggestions below - the others I''m not so sure about!

It has to be related to the division and not to the clubs turnover.

We have the 25 player registered, I would like to go one step further and senior players who don''t get registered are free to go to another club.[/quote]

I have to point out the obvious issues with this.

First off if you have given a player a contract you must honour it. Otherwise clubs would be able to take advantage of situations by not naming players - lets also remember that there are two points in which this can be done - at the end of August and in January.

Secondly if a player becomes long-term injured it is in the best interests of the club not to name them so that they free up a squad position for a loanee or signing to replace them.

I believe Wolves did this for the first half of last season for Kightley.

Then there are other things such as young players aged 22 who may yet need more match time and so loaned out, but are still highly rated by their team.

All of these would be problematic to just cutting out everyone not in the 25.

What is interesting for me is that in our case Ward''s option of an additional year was triggered at the start of the summer. If he is not wanted or rated then would it really be that much to pay him off thus releasing him from a contract with us? Suggests to me that Hughton wants to keep him on the books but out on loan incase one defender becomes injured and he has to come back in in January.

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="beelsie"]Hi,YC, a very good post for the forum to get their teeth into. The whole message if taken to the limit is to be welcomed by all business minded people, as far back as 93 we were saying that clubs should be run in a business like manner. Perhaps the financial situation that we as a country now face has helped the money wasters come to their senses. Norwich city with it''s currant ground capacity is not a huge money spinner and the gate sizes are not adequate, but sensible management has prevailed and the club is fairly stable. It would be nice to see our ground able to take 40,000. If the prospects of that happening become reality and we remain in the top league, we should be a very good top half outfit, and with a great deal of luck and a favourable wind it will be a loud "on the ball city" for the future. Beelsie!![/quote]

As has been said, increasing the ground capacity would not make a huge difference in the way things are financially due to the obscene level of TV money and obscene levels of  rich mans pocket money.  Also, imo, we would not often fill a stadium capable of holding 40,000.   Most games there would be empty seats.    Actually, I rather like the fact that its difficult to get tickets.   It means the ground is full every week.    I would rather that than just be able to turn up on the day knowing I can easily get a ticket - and have empty areas around the ground.    As it is I can usually get a ticket whenever I want - which means the demand is not so great.  A small increase in stadium capacity is sensible.  Say, to  30,000.     Thinking "big" is not necessarily   the way forward.   Sustainability is what it is all about.    

I am fairly cynical about anything meaningful happening in this debate.    It will take a very large club in the premiership to fail  before anything would happen.       Money is power and people that have it - or control it - won''t give up their power without a fight.   In other words, money talks- as it always does........

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

 

Beelsie, never mind about the details of this thread.....I''ll leave it to others to advise if there has been any progress reported in the British media. I am simply responding here to acknowledge my pleasure at your presence and see you still alive and kicking. Please don''t be a total stranger.

[/quote]

 

Seconded[Y]

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

No, I think there has been rumblings for quite a while now.

 

Provoked I think by the realisation that Pompey and Rangers are not the exceptions, but are the reality and if something is not done soon the whole lot will collapse.

 

The cause being not so much the money being laundered through clubs like Man City but the dangerous actions by other clubs who seek '' to keep up '', thereby putting themselves into hideous and unsustainable debt.

 

Most bubbles eventually burst, they do not level off.

 

[/quote]

 

I thought that the laundering of money is a criminal offence in most jurisdictions, n''est ce pas?

 

OTBC

 

 

[Yellow Wal 314]

[quote user="chicken"]

[quote user="Yellow Wall"]Indy - it was a long time ago in this thread but nevertheless I would like to say that I fully agree with your suggestions below - the others I''m not so sure about!

It has to be related to the division and not to the clubs turnover.

We have the 25 player registered, I would like to go one step further and senior players who don''t get registered are free to go to another club.[/quote]

I have to point out the obvious issues with this.

First off if you have given a player a contract you must honour it. Otherwise clubs would be able to take advantage of situations by not naming players - lets also remember that there are two points in which this can be done - at the end of August and in January.

Secondly if a player becomes long-term injured it is in the best interests of the club not to name them so that they free up a squad position for a loanee or signing to replace them.

I believe Wolves did this for the first half of last season for Kightley.

Then there are other things such as young players aged 22 who may yet need more match time and so loaned out, but are still highly rated by their team.

All of these would be problematic to just cutting out everyone not in the 25.

What is interesting for me is that in our case Ward''s option of an additional year was triggered at the start of the summer. If he is not wanted or rated then would it really be that much to pay him off thus releasing him from a contract with us? Suggests to me that Hughton wants to keep him on the books but out on loan incase one defender becomes injured and he has to come back in in January.

[/quote]

I could well suggest instead to increase the number of players to 30 ..... but keep it strictly to 30 players, over the age of 21, signed on for the club. Players under that age would not count.

By doing this there would be a margin to allow for longer term injuries.

As far as players having a contract, a simple solution. If the player is not included in the 30 his contract would have to be honoured. This would have a few advantages. It would stop the largest clubs signing all the best players and then allowing them to remain at their club while they run their contract down and sign others. If the club had to honour the contract with the player, i.e. pay off the remaining part if they no longer wish to include them, but release them, it would make those players available to ''lesser'' clubs.

Once a player became 21 the club would have to make it''s mind up, make him part of their 30 man squad (in which case they would have to release another player perhaps) or allow the player to continue his career at a different club, again allowing a ''lesser'' club to benefit.

This would stop the biggest clubs monopolising all the best players, allow 22 year olds (especially British, home grown players) to continue their careers at clubs where they would gain first team experience without having to sit at a club doing nothing or having numerous loan clubs, and stop the largest clubs having 50 or 60 players signed on.

[beelsie 0]

Hi YC since I last came on the board many things have happened,  namely the wonderful way the team under the Lambert regime responded and indeed gave it their all through three wonderful seasons and started to fight for a winning formula that has been successful, there was no more shrinking into their shells in the six yard box, It has been long since we saw three and four city players in the box looking for a strike, and long may it continue. Its been  two years since I had a stroke, only what is medically termed a TIA. It affected my vision and hand and eye co-ordination.  The old brain had great difficulty stringing two sentences together, plus I would loose the thread and have to go back over the correspondance.  It seems now that I can enjoy the banter of the forums once again.  Also YC I still find Wiz a pain, I would like to thank those of you who have welcomed and invited me back.Best wishes Beelsie

[YankeeCanary 0]

 

Great that you have made such a recovery Beelsie. There is still a lot of "stuff" on here that one has to work around but there are still some good posters and, once in a while, a few good threads. I''m not as frequent a visitor as I used to be as my wife has been through her difficulties over the past 2-3 years which keeps me busy inside and outside of the house most of the time. It''s great to have old time posters such as yourself returning so a big welcome back!

 

Now, as long as this thread has been bumped to the top again, may I ask if anyone has seen anything at all in the British press regarding the talks that were to have taken place last week on spending limits? If so, any links would be appreciated.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

 

Now, as long as this thread has been bumped to the top again, may I ask if anyone has seen anything at all in the British press regarding the talks that were to have taken place last week on spending limits? If so, any links would be appreciated.

[/quote]

 

Yankee, The Guardian article announcing this said:

The clubs have agreed to work on the proposals in two separate groups of 10, then for all 20 to meet to consider the issue in detail at the end of September. The Premier League did not want to comment in detail until further work has been done; a spokesman confirmed: "There is a process under way to examine potential further financial regulation."

So the end of the month at the earliest for any news, but it may not even be then, either because nothing will have been settled or because there won''t be a statement.