The Championship have just voted to limit spending on teams to no more than income, preventing owners from large injections of money. They are trying to prevent the huge debts that have dogged football in recent years. The spokesman said a few chairman voted against this new rule (not sure when it's being introduced). I wonder how NC voted. We have a big fan base, so our income must be quite good, but difficult to fund very expensive purchases. Probably good for football in the long term, but not necessarily good for us in short-term, although NC has always said we should aim to be self-financing.
If that was done in every league then the clubs with the biggest gates would overall still be the clubs at or near the top of the pile. The big change could be that prices would have to fall so that money changed hands as often for the smaller clubs to survive. Wages being lowered would also be a good thing.
It can only be a good thing in my eyes, & will stop clubs rolling the dice to get promoted. Youth systems & attendances are the way forward.
As the prem wont be doing this surly its going to affect who goes up n down, we could end up with the three relegated teams always going back up as they will have loads of money from parachute payments when the rest of the league is running on a shoe string But in theory if all leagues did it, it would a gd thing
Does this new ruling include transfer fees or just wages? Blackburn, Middlesborough, Wigan, Fulham & Stoke have all benefited from wealthy owners in recent history (many more could be added i'm sure) and bar Stoke those teams are fairly small in terms of attendances. I think if someone wants to plow money into a football club they should not be discouraged and the free market should reign supreme, but of course with every responsible owner you get a Gaydamak and because a football club is a treasured part of the community they need to be protected. So I appreciate what the football league are trying to achieve. Easy solution for NC, get the Leibherrs to sponsor a minibus for £10 million. Income received
Would this just cover wages? Large cash injections for development projects like stadium building/expansion and youth facilities would seem fair enough if there is demand for them. There needs to be a distinction between short-term gambling and long-term investment.
I am totally against a spending cap in any way shape of form. Clubs like Wigan and Fulham have spent their owners money to bring about Premiership football, why should that right be denied to other clubs. It's alright saying that clubs should just spend based on their gates and income, but if that was the case then Wigan would still be in the 4th Division.To have an arbitrary point that clubs have to stop spending benefits the clubs which have done so all ready, whilst denying other clubs the oppurtunity.
I agree with LD, surely this will just benefit the clubs being relegated from the premier league? On the other hand we do have one of the best youth set ups in the league, which will help us when this rule comes into effect.
There has to be a clear difference between an owner loaning money to a club (and therefore the possibililty of him or her asking for it back and therefore sending a club into administration) and an owner donating money to a club. Nothing should prevent an owner giving money to a club.
Generally I'm against this general idea as it limits smaller clubs from investing for success and growth. However I believe that the proposed cap will be a salary cap, and as such a salary cap of 100% of turnover is very generous. The prem figures came out today and Man U spent 46% of its turnover on salaries and Man City 107% the average was 68%. So 100% gives ample scope. If it is total spend that is a different story and is a severe restriction on investment.
Interesting....... "the Championship is 'a league of real contrasts'. Relegated clubs from the top tier receive the financial cushion of parachute payments, but many others in their league are feeling the pain of the tough financial environment." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13679632
That Sugar programme the other week made my blood boil. You had Dave Whelan on there calling for a salary cap. Yet had there been one in place 20 years ago, then Wigan would not have made the Premiership. A cap would stop Wallsal or Boscombe doing what Whelan did at Wigan. Sugar kept banging on about capping players wages, yet if someone told him how much he was allowed to pay Nick Hewer, he'd tell them to bugger off. If I win the Euro millions and want to spend millions on players wages at SMS, that should be my business. Not Sugar's and certainly not Dave "I'm alright Jack" Whelan's.
The proposal (which has pretty much been actioned now by Greg Clarke) doesn't set a limit on transfer fees as far as I'm aware, all it does is cap wage spending at 60% of turnover. Not sure what other clubs' figures for that are but Leeds run at 50% so it would hardly affect us. It will take effect in the 2012/13 season it seems; Clarke said they'd need half a year to work out how it would be implemented. On the point of smaller clubs' success: A. if spending continues the way it is now, debts will continue to rack up. Is that something you're really happy to watch happen just so that small clubs can spend insane proportions of their turnover on wages? B. it's entirely possible for small clubs to improve their turnover. Look at St Pauli in Germany; small traditionally lower-league club overshadowed by their bigger neighbours Hamburger SV, but their marketing department has now got them a worldwide fanbase and their merchandising brings in bucketloads. When there's a will there's a way, it's true of any business and it's true of any football club. Another German example might be clubs like Bayer Leverkusen and Wolfsburg who've never traditionally been big clubs but make loads out of their corporate partnerships with their parent companies Bayer and Volkswagen. C. is it really a bad thing that clubs like Wigan could have more of a ceiling imposed on their ambitions? I for one am not comfortable with the notion of clubs like them being in the Premiership. They're boring and should be made to work harder than just having a Dave Whelan figure bankrolling their survival year on year.
The problem I have with imposing a ceiling; is that Wigan, Fulham and the like (Where would Blackburn be without Jack Walkers millions 20 years ago) have had the benefit and they are now Premiership clubs. It will be easier for them to remain so if a cap on others is agreed. Just because they happen to be in the top flight at the point the ceiling is agreed, they benefit. Had the cap been imposed 20 years ago, they would still be in the 3rd and 4th Division. I just found it unbelievable that Whelan is calling for a cap when the lack of a cap is the only reason Wigan are in the top flight.
Agreed, but if a cap did come in for Premiership clubs, Wigan would be one of the first to go. They spend 91% of turnover on wages. It wouldn't result in stagnation with all the small clubs staying up. Fulham operate at 63%, it would be easier for them to survive in the longer term. Point A is the overriding one though for me, the wages are unsustainable and quite simply have to be slashed.
Wouldn't clubs then just be even more desperate to increase turnover at any cost, meaning fans get shafted even more than at present? Whenever I see something like this I always think 'will clubs cut Ruud Van Nistelbooy's salary from £110,000 per week to £100,000 per week, or will they just whack another tenner on ticket prices so they have enough turnover to increase their wage cap?'
I believe the Premiership are also looking at something similar to prevent clubs accumulate massive debts. At the moment, people can buy a club and then saddle it with debt..look at Manchester United. There was also talk last season that owners would not be prevented from putting money into academies...don't know whether that's gone any further.
