If I understand the concept correctly, it may well change when the "Fair Pay" rule comes into the premiership and across football globally. But the bigger clubs will still be able to pay more. A salary cap would naturally follow as clubs will have to keep within the boundaries of the fair play rule. This will take time but i guess eventually it will even out. The bigger payers will always get the cream but salaries for managers and players will reach a ceiling. The manager and player agents would then have to earn their coin by negotiating lucrative sponsorship deals for their clients, their cut may also be impacted. Not sure we won't see other clubs go into administration but at least the ruling bodies now acknowledge something has to be done.
they will still get around this dude, bloody clubs like man utd are even buying parents silence aka pogba......ofcourse lille couldnt fight man utd in court with the main witness going mute and suffering from memory loss. where theres money theres problems.....whatever its 2do with
The only ruling that will bring football in line is when they have to treat all debts the same like any normal business. No preferential treatment for 'football debts'. I don't know how they get away with ring fencing these debts.
In Pompey's case its good old Ken Dodd ......Sorry Harry the swindler that has done for them, the man is an absolute liability, he owns massive chunks of prime real estate in the Portsmouth area all from his ill gotten gains that their poor fans have ultimately paid the highest price for. I hope they get out of this mess. As for Rangers i just think it is a paper exercise to write a huge tax liability off, their top sides will have to come down south sooner or later, question is where do you start them off, unless the old Prem 1 and Prem 2 rears its head again.
We have enough problems in our league without more financial problems and bigotry being imported from elsewhere.
Harry Redknapp negotiated a contract with his employers, sorry lads I think blaming Redknapp for all Pompeys ills is not only wrong but inadvisable. I know a Pompey fans and he's of the opinion the problems started way before the Mandaric and Redknapp double act. It will be interesting to see what happens at Rangers and Pompey but I sincerely hope both clubs survive and move on. Looking at the relatively recent transfer activities we can thank the likes of Man city and Chelsea for the inflated markets and the mega-rich oil tycoons from Russia and UAE. How can any footballer can be worth a weekly salary of £200,000 baffles me.
how is it the football managers fault? its the chief executive and chairmans responsibility to make sure they are running the business sustainably, the managers job nowadays is to recommend players to sign and train the players, to blame harry for the way portsmouth have gone is laughable.
The conflict of interest that exists when the manager is paid a bonus for any profit on transfers doesn't help the situation though. What director in his right mind writes this into a managers contract.
No conflict of interest exists as the board have to agree the managers contract and they also have to approve all transfers in and out of the club. This is the same in any business where large amounts are involved.
May be a stupid idea as I'm out of the loop on the fair play thingy and this may be a part of it but rather than a salary cap for players why not have a salary cap for the clubs. Numbers used for illustration purposes only, say $1,000,000 a week in wages per club maximum so you can either have 4 players at $200k and the rest (20) at $10k or 20 at $50k and of course any amounts as long as the total bill doesn't exceed $1million.
Salary caps are difficult in a sport that deals with global transfers. How do you ensure that all clubs in all nations are following the rules, and with a varying global economic climate who determines what the salary cap is where? If you just want a salary cap for one nation, they biggest clubs would be at a major disadvantage in European competitions. Administration should really be tougher on clubs. Rangers will probably still finish second and qualify for Europe. For me, administration should equal automatic relegation and 10 points deducted at the start of the new season. A thorough investigation should then be held into why the club ended up in administration, and the person (s) responsible banned form being involved at any level of football for life.
The fair pay rule is salaries can be no more than a percentage of revenue. I think I read somewhere in the region of salaries could not be more than 60% of revenue. One problem is what is deemed revenue? For example Man city would have a huge problem meeting this based on their current revenue streams and salaries. What isn't clear (to me) is whether or not this is the salaries of playing staff only, the football team (manager, coaches, physio) or the whole club down to the tea lady. Man city have tried to increase the revenue stream by some sort of sponsorship deal with Etihad by way of them sponsoring Man city, however, the rule makers have stated they cannot do this as they are essentially sponsoring themselves. Not sure if this is resolved yet tbh. The bottom line (imo) is the lower league clubs will suffer as they may not be able to generate enough revenue to support this rule and will be easy pickings for richer clubs.
In addition to a salary cap, I would like to see limits on loan players. Such as no loaning to teams in the same division. No more than 3 players out on loan at any one time and teams could not play more than 2 loaned players in their match day squad. Atleast this would result in clubs developing their own players and stop the mega rich clubs buying up all young talent.
There's a similar discussion on the Swans board. I believe there are rules being introduced by FIFA (but they are a long way off I think) that only allow clubs to spend what they generate. That'll sort quite a few out. Someone said the fans must take a share of the blame in all this. There are always those (Daiswan) who think you should go out and spend ridiculous money in a super-inflated market just to get promotion or retain your status. I keep mentioning Andy Carroll. 10 times the value of Danny Graham? Come on. Hampshire: I think that some of those rules of yours might have affected Cardiff last season! Lol.
KJ, i was one of the ones advocating swansea spending £10m or so in this market to ensure survival, it looks as though that will be achieved on a fraction of that, shows what i know about football! as for sponsorship and FFP, its completely unworkable. roman abramovic owns cska moscow as well as chelsea and this was only under the spotlight when they played each other a few years ago, i believe also one of his companies sponsored the team, so this fixed sponsorship that man city are doing is nothing new, and besides FFP just ensures that man u, arsenal, liverpool etc, will occupy the top 6 places in the PL for the next 100 years, as they will be able to spend more than the other clubs who dont have such high revenues. as for a player earning £200k a week being disgusting, give me a break, this isnt soviet russia we're in, its pure jealousy. i've no problem with aguero, rooney, van persie earning hundreds of thousands a week because they are worth every penny, and there is so much money coming into the game that its only fair the top players are rewarded. the only way i sympathise with your argument is people like wayne bridge on £90k a week, that is the average players on not so average salaries. only in the PL does this happen, in other countries, like spain, barcelona will pay massive wages to the top players, but the average squad members wont, thats the way to go IMO. its garbage to use the man on the street on £20k a year whilst player X is on £220k a week, look up supply and demand, they get offered the money, and only a handful of people in the world can fulfil their role. the man on the street however, billions of people could do his job, thats why his job pays a fraction of the top footballers
Knackeredjack, agree 100% about Carroll and all transfer fees over £10,000,000 at the top level. Why £10,000,000? My thinking is that at at the higher end of the scale you pay a premium to get a player who can help you in Europe and get/keep you in the top 4. So if you pull in £100,000,000 over the season that player may just be worth it to the club. Not sure of actual funds but you get the idea, however that's only on the footballing side alone. You can also put in sponsorship revenue generated by a top star such as Messi for Barcelona. Very difficult to calculate I guess but it must be taken into consideration when making a bid one would think. I do not buy into the paying beyond your means and the UEFA fair pay rule addresses this and will be enforced next season in the premiership, I believe it came into force for the championship this season. Whether or not this includes the transfer fee I am not sure. The loan market may well dry up if clubs start to limit the size of their squad because they have expensive first team players and are near the salary limit.
Interesting discussion around this topic on Talksport yesterday prior to the Milan/Ar5ena1 game. The view of an English journalist based in Italy was that the best players in Italy get a maximum basic wage of Euro50/60k per week (still huge by the "man in the street" standards) but way below what the top players get here, Spain, France and Germany. They top this up with performance bonuses, sponsorship, endorsements etc. With total attendances in their top league being well below our Championship attendances they do not have the gate income (even when some of their ticket prices are extortionate even compared to ours) so cannot justify such high wages as elsewhere. Before the game they said this had caused the drop in standard of Italian football compared to the other big countries - although Ar5ena1 might disagree after last night. What a stuffing, Ar5ena1 were clueless and even our Ramsey was like a fish out of water. Maybe the likes of the 2 Milans and Juventus can pay more than others but it is evident that Italian football has been forced to concentrate more on home grown talent. Perhaps this has seen a bit of a drop in the last few years but if they stick with this combined with the odd successful import they will reap the benfits in the next 4/5 years.
true, but in this country people dont care about where the team will be in 5 years time, they only care about the short run, if a chairman refuses to pay over the top fees for players, they get hammered for it, and whenever a 18 year old doesnt perform from the word go they are written off, and the manager hung out to dry, its a cultural thing. under mourinho, inter were very much a 'now' team, ie, lots of 30 year olds brought in, and any success they would have would be short term and not sustainable in the long run, they have lost serie a and not been pulling up any trees in the CL, they have also had 4 managers since. look at tottenham hotspur in the summer of 2007. martin jol was the manager, he wanted to build upon consecutive 5th place finishes by signing experienced players to go straight into the team and propel the team up the table. however, he was presented with young players, one of them being gareth bale, as he didnt perform in his first 2 years he was almost sold for £3m to a championship team. incidentally the player jol wanted to play left mid was martin petrov, who would spurs rather have now? same with modric, lennon etc, 3 years ago spurs were building for the future, now they are reaping the rewards of investing in youth. fans in this country complain there arent enough quality english / welsh youth players yet want managers to bring in experienced players who can do a job in the next season or two, but after that they will be stuck with players on big money who are worthless to sell as they are over 30, everyone is to blame in a way....
