ncfcstar 289 Posted May 16, 2013 Interesting tweet of the day:David Conn @david_conn 46m @FootballLaw Proposal, by Ipswich Town, was £16m max spending on wages next year for clubs with parachute payments, £12m for others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwindonCanary 455 Posted May 16, 2013 Clubs are always going to get around maximum payments for player, it was flouted when there was a maximum wage, by offering ''freebees'' to players Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zak Van Burger 0 Posted May 16, 2013 Binner Blubfest, please take a look have a good laugh and move on quietly there''s quite a queue forming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chicken 0 Posted May 16, 2013 It won''t work.The Premier League would need to introduce some rules in regards to wages as well or the levels between the two would be two difficult to bridge especially with the increased amount of money in the top flight now.It might work if they put a time scale on it, for example two seasons to reduce the wage bill to that level, would give teams a chance to try and sell or renegotiate terms or exits for players. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,557 Posted May 16, 2013 [quote user="ncfcstar"]Interesting tweet of the day:David Conn @david_conn 46m @FootballLaw Proposal, by Ipswich Town, was £16m max spending on wages next year for clubs with parachute payments, £12m for others. [/quote] Our player wage bill for the 2011-12 season was £25.2m. But if that seems ultra-low compared to other similar-sized clubs, that is because it isn''t the same figure. The figures you will see quoted nationally (for ourselves and for others) are for overall staff costs. That figure for us was £36.7m.Now whether that £16m figure being suggested Ipswich refers to the obviously lower number for player wages alone or the by definition higher number for all staff costs I don''t know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites