Do we need to scrap the wage cap?

http://www.talksport.co.uk/sports-n...ted-have-compete-financially-top-stars-189714

Very interesting interview with Rob Lee.

If Remy keeps QPR up, the 80k a week wages on the wage bill will be extremely worth it.

Is it worth missing opportunities for the sake for an extra 20k a week more than we want to pay?

If we want top class players, we need to pay the money.

 

And where would it stop? Other players will want a raise and on and on it goes.

We tried that once and we nearly went pop.

Stable finances are the key moving forward.

 

Dip into your piggy bank Tash. Save the Club you love.

 

Harry Redknapp has bankrupted three football clubs due to wages. I'd say wage caps, something Spurs and Stoke also have, are a good idea.

If QPR do go down, try getting SWP, Cisse, Bosingwa off the wage bill, 4 years on £80k+ p/w, I'd guess they'd not give a monkeys what league they're in. Remember Alan Smith?

 

By scrap I didn't mean completely get rid of a wage cap, but just raise it from 50k to a higher amount if we want better players.

 

And Xisco

 

It might be the case that the wage cap could be more proportionally representative of the income the club receives, but I don't think it's too bad if we can attract Cabaye, Debuchy etc. However, even if we didn't have a wage cap we'd lose out on people like Remy, because there's clubs who don't give any sort of **** about the balance sheet and will chuck billions at the problem. We don't really have that luxury!

 

No not at all! we just need to accept you can't win if another club offers ludicrous wages.

 

THIS! The wage cap can be a good thing, but it means we'll miss out on some players. Better than having a squad full of overpaid freeloaders we can't get rid of.

 

Whenever I bring this subject up, why does everyone assume I'm saying just go mental and play **** loads for players or something like that?

All I'm saying is that we'll never be able to compete with this wage cap, and we could face the same situation again next season if we cannot compete with other clubs for wages.

I'm not saying demolish the wage cap, but maybe raise it a little for the right player.

 

But who is the right player? What would that do to the existing squad when somebody comes in on higher wages?

 

It's about time the whole issue of wages came into question. It is totally immoral, in my opinion, for players to be receiving the £200K+ whilst clubs are struggling to survive. God help Citeh and Chelsea if their owners decide enough is enough, and god help all Prem clubs if Sky ever falter. Football has just about priced out the working man taking his family to watch a match but it's even worse when away supporters get charged more to watch the same match as home supporters.
I say there should be a cap for all clubs .

Rant Over.

 

Hell will freeze over first before Ashley raises any salaries

 

Our team is in hell and Newcastle is under 3 foot of snow... Does that count?

 

The wage cap in principle is a good idea to keep us on a safe balance sheet. But we do need to look at how it's structured as whilst we don't want a high paid flop we don't want to miss out on a player for the sake of 5-10% extra.

It's a tough one as not all clubs are on a level playing field - 200k pw is simply crazy and only a few clubs manage to offer that type of contract.

Players must soon realise that there is a hierarchy of pay for professionals and is they want to get to the next level clubs like Newcastle/Liverpool/Everton can put them in the window to move up a rung or two (Ba for example), will QPR really showcase someone to move up a level?

 

Tash is right. The wage cap does need to be scrapped.


Look, the reason Xisco Alan Smith & co. got the wages they had was NOT due to the lack of a salary cap. It was due to poor scouting (Youtube) and poor player judgement. The lack of the salary cap is not the cause for those players getting overpaid, its the wrong choice of players to pay.

Just abolish the wage cap. The board are now smarter and have learnt their lesson from those players. All they need to do now is judge all signings on a case-by-case basis. Let's face it if we had the opportunity to sign some big signing like Robert Lewandowski because his favourite club is Newcastle, why shouldn't we offer him high wages in the 80ks and above? If Alan Shearer were to resurface as a 25-year-old, why won't we offer him those wages as well?

Point is, the salary cap is severely handicapping us in pursuing capable players to improve the team. We already have a backbone on the team that is able to compete reasonably well, even if this season doesn't suggest so. To improve the team, how feasible is it to only offer players <50k p/w? The gems we got lucky with, Tiote Cabaye et al, are just that, gems. How many players out there can we really get who are within an inch of progressing and come on soon to become stalwarts on the starting lineup?

To make matters worse, what we need now are quality starters to replace players like Jonas in the starting lineup. We are deeply entrenched in a relegation battle and why are we still looking for players to develop? Spend 2 million and go down, and then lose the team we have built up, or spend 8 million on a quality starter, and stay up and build on it next season.

 

It's really nothing to do with the fans. If Mike Ashley wants to lavish his own money on the club without any thought of payback, its all good with me. While that is not the case the club needs to be run properly. I still don't trust Ashley long term so I would think it unwise to lumber the club with a load of debts. As I say though its not really anything to do with us, its for Ashley to consider and I believe he will stick to the path he's on. He wants his money back and will continue on a buy low, sell high policy until he has it. We just have to hope we get a few gems along the way which keep us ticking and if possible, progressing.

 

Just to clarify, what is your definition of "lumbering the club with debts"

As far as I know, Chelski and Man City have huge debts to their respective chairmen so to you does that mean it's unwise for those clubs? Or do we prefer a chairman who wants his accounts done to the cent and be paid in full every cent that he invested in the club(just like Ashley)? Debts to whom? It's not like we'll be straddled with administration if we're heavily indebted to Ashley or that we're spending cash that isn't there(Freddy Shepherd?)

 

Could well be unwise on their part but they seem happy to write it off. Its their plaything, whereas Mike views us as a business. Mike isn't going to put one penny more of his own money into this venture. Its quite the opposite. So any big money spent you'd have to assume would be the club saddling itself with debt.

I'd quite happily have a Roman or Dubai ownership who wanted to lavish money on us. The facts are we don't and we need to learn to get used to this instead of pissing and moaning about it. The danger with Mike is he bails on us and decides to cut his losses. So the club spend way beyond their means as they have done previously, build up a load of debt, and then we're ****ed because our sugar daddy turns out to not be a sugar daddy at all.

Of course Man C and Chelski could fold like a pack of cards if their owners bailed but it doesn't look likely. With our owner I'm not so sure he wants this for the long term. I think he wants to the club to pay him back so he can then get out. Either that or he wants it to be a profitable business for him. Either way he owns it and can do as he pleases and I stopped caring about the financial and transfer side of the club a long time ago.

 

Yes and that's the problem I think. Our owner is me-first whereas the other sugar daddy clubs are adopting a club-first approach. For Mike, I think he isn't desperately listening to all offers for the club, but at the very least he would really like to wash his hands off the club and at least break-even or cut losses from the amount he has invested! Of course he's the chairman and he can and will do whatever he pleases but the problem with that is it isn't in line with our club's ambitions. Take for example the past few windows, we refuse to cough up a few extra millions and constantly look to lowball teams by unsettling their players and force them to be sellers to us. And their plan apparently seems to be "release loads of transfer rumours, confuse the public by mixing real deals and false rumours, and if we succeed in lowballing teams for their players then good, if all else fails we'll just tell the fans we tried". The January window is fast closing. We've reduced our targets from 4 at the start, to saying 3 in the middle of it, to now we only want 2. Well guess what, I won't be surprised if we end up with just 1.