Possibly tipsy but wasn't it rumoured that a salary cap applied by all the clubs at the same level effectively constituted a cartel and therefore was illegal? Ultimately we are football mad (we must be) over here and it's the incessant demand placed upon the game by us the public and the media that drives this crazed circus.
You may well be right. But I am sure there must be a way to introduce a wage cap legally. Really the clubs should be delighted at this outcome. The other way of dealing with it maybe less help for clubs with poor finances, immediate relegation etc. Really for the minute they have a very good deal. Not many businesses get away with such poor business models
Does anyone know the reasons for Fulham, West Bromwich Albion, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea City and Southampton voting against this? Seems an unusual selection of clubs. Maybe because they did not feel they went far enough?
Tipsy - Take your point and also if the PL brought it in with full concensus from all of the clubs then if nobody complained then it wouldn't be a problem. However I can still see a club using the argument that it is a restriction of trade if it was ever penalised for breaking the rules. I still think that there are so many ways round it that it will have no real effect. I think that Man City/Swans/Saints/Fulham all rely massively on funds from wealthy backers - although Swansea also have Brendan and the Bin-dippers paying over the odds for their players as a second source of income. I have no idea why West Brom or Villa would object although given Villa's current position they may struggle for funds if they go on to get relegated.
I believe West Brom objected as they felt all clubs should be capable themselves of not running at a huge loss. Each club should be capable of running a tight ship, making these regulations superfluous in their eyes. Whilst it might be true of a select few clubs, and a nice idea, I think it's a naive position to take really. At a guess, I'd say Southampton objected as it penalises their 'model' of financial backing equally as much as the likes of Chelsea. As I said earlier, without the external source of income, Southampton have the wages under control to be able to carry on regardless, whilst the likes of Chelsea wouldn't. The £105m cap hurts them most as it means their owner can only contribute £35m per season to transfers. From figures I can find online Southampton spent approximately £30m last summer, so they'd very quickly run into that cap if they want to buy better players.
