TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Not a problem for the Gulls, according to the HE. How much of a problem for Creepy Crawley, where the salary costs of their vast and very expensive squad must be far higher than 55% of the club's turnover?

"Turnover" can't include payments in by their sugar daddies (whoever they are), and must therefore be quite low based on their gates, even allowing for the one-off revenue from the FA Cup.

I am sure that Steve "fatty" Evans has found a way around this though.

Crawley Town playing by the rules? Unheard of!

They will just carry on spending and ignore all restrictions. There has been no punishment set for breaking these rules so I expect Crawley (and a few others) will blissfully ignore them.

If their 'sugar daddy' inputs money into the club directly, and it get's filed as income then they're playing by the rules.

The bubble will burst eventually.

Man city was going to have the same problem but there owner is now a sponsor to, which means the money he puts in for transfers and stuff are ok. I would guess crawley would do something simular, but they will go bust in the end, look at notts county there dream ended after 1 season in league 1 haha

Sugar daddy can buy a pen from the club shop for £1million. Problem Solved.

This is why salary cap based on turnover is a bad idea - easy to manipulate and doesn't represent the financial health of clubs by any means.

basil75 wrote:This is why salary cap based on turnover is a bad idea - easy to manipulate and doesn't represent the financial health of clubs by any means.

Yes, I hate this income-based salary cap as well. There's talk of trying to extend it into the Premier League as well one day, which is...bloody useless. There's already a massive rich/poor divide there. The best way to make sure clubs don't spend too much is to institute a fixed amount salary cap.

Quite right Happy. It's a simple process, there is a fixed salary for footballers based upon division. L2 footballers earn £400/week. L1 £600. Championship £1500 and Premier League £2500. There is no good reason why a PL footballer needs more than £125,000/year, that's more than enough money for anyone charged with playing a childs' game for a living.

I know this idea needs ironing out, but in theory, it's fine. All salaries must go through a committee first. This committee is me and my mum. Diamondgirl and I will make the decisions about buying pens for £1,000,000 and paying £400 salaries, but £1,000,000 "appearance bonuses". Clubs who attempt to circumvent our rules or pull the wool over our eyes will be relegated a division/infringement.

Problem solved.

Matt.

You'd have to make it worldwide, though.

This is why I like the MLS system. Surprises me that PL owners aren't more into it, to be honest - a salary cap for them would mean bigger profits!

ferrarilover wrote:Quite right Happy. It's a simple process, there is a fixed salary for footballers based upon division. L2 footballers earn £400/week. L1 £600. Championship £1500 and Premier League £2500. There is no good reason why a PL footballer needs more than £125,000/year, that's more than enough money for anyone charged with playing a childs' game for a living.

I know this idea needs ironing out, but in theory, it's fine. All salaries must go through a committee first. This committee is me and my mum. Diamondgirl and I will make the decisions about buying pens for £1,000,000 and paying £400 salaries, but £1,000,000 "appearance bonuses". Clubs who attempt to circumvent our rules or pull the wool over our eyes will be relegated a division/infringement.

Problem solved.

Matt.

Although i usually agree with a lot you say, unfortunately the figures you state would mean no-one would want to live/play for a London team for a start where the cost of living demands higher wages.

I know you weren't serious about some of ur post but realistically, let's pretend Chelsea only had to pay £2,500 or similar "normal" wage to 30 odd players - and then they sign theyr £10million/year sponsorship deals - where should the rest of the money go?

And while the money footballers get paid is ludicrous - if i worked hard to keep my body in top fitness, and regularly played football to entertain potentially millions of people around the world, i'd want a hell of a lot more than £2,500 especially if the board are sitting there rubbing their hands together from TV deals and other advertising revenue. That wouldn't be fair at all. I think footballers should get a decent percentage of the money the club receive - but in a perfect world they wouldn't receive as much money in the top flight. But yes, you can't enforce a wage cap here unless it was global, else all the good players would leave to other countries.

the_shredder wrote:
Although i usually agree with a lot you say, unfortunately the figures you state would mean no-one would want to live/play for a London team for a start where the cost of living demands higher wages.

I know you weren't serious about some of ur post but realistically, let's pretend Chelsea only had to pay £2,500 or similar "normal" wage to 30 odd players - and then they sign theyr £10million/year sponsorship deals - where should the rest of the money go?

And while the money footballers get paid is ludicrous - if i worked hard to keep my body in top fitness, and regularly played football to entertain potentially millions of people around the world, i'd want a hell of a lot more than £2,500 especially if the board are sitting their rubbing their hands together from TV deals and other advertising revenue. That wouldn't be fair at all. I think footballers should get a decent percentage of the money the club receive - but in a perfect world they wouldn't receive as much money in the top flight. But yes, you can't enforce a wage cap here unless it was global, else all the good players would leave to other countries.

I actually wouldn't have used the figures that Matt suggested, and I'd do it in a different - rather than placing a limit on what an individual player could earn, simply say to the clubs - "ok you lot, you have X amount to spend a year". That way, if Manchester City felt the need to pay some dolt £250,000 a week, that'd be fine, but they'd then have to pay a few of their squad players £2000 a week. (just an example). That way, those very players who are worth the bigger bucks get it, and there's more flexibility to bring in a star name. I'd probably also institute some sort of penalty system whereby a team *could* go over that cap, but only if they are made to pay a substantial fine (we'd call this an "extravagance" tax to make it sound better) that would then be put into funding grass-roots community football programs.

Honestly, why aren't I in charge at the FA?

Yeah, like that Happy. Did mine in 30 seconds while on hold with the CPS in Birmingham.

Shred, the money in football is self perpetuating, the Alan Sugar documentary to which I so often refer really bought that home. All they do is take the present amount of money in football and divide it by 100. so, where a club are payed £100,000 for appearing on TV, they now are payed £1000 for appearing on TV. Thus, the money they have to spend is much reduced.If income is 100 times lower, outgoings must be 100 times lower in order for profit to remain constant. Thus, if income is made up of gate receipts, tv money, sponsorship, transfers, merchandise and commercial endeavours and today, it comes to £1,000,000,000 (one billion). This club spends the regulation 55% of income on wages, so can pay £550,000,000 (five hundred and fifty million). Divide this whole lot by 100 and suddenly, the numbers are still large, but not stupid large. Income of 10,000,000 and wages of £5,500,000 (Tevez at Man City earns double this, in one year, on his own).

I know it's simplistic and I know there are many factors for which I haven't accounted, but on the face of it, it's not an unworkable solution, provided it's applied to the top leagues world wide.

As for those in the lower divisions, Happy's American idea of a squad pay limit, so you have no more than 22 pros and the squad earnings in L2 are £660,000/year (£30,000/year each). Thus, if CTFC want to pay Torres or whoever £5000/week, they have to pay the rest of the squad £50/week to make up. Regulate this to prevent "appearance bonuses" by imposing a tax levy that says anything over £30,000/year for L2 footballers is taxed at 100%.

Essentially, do whatever is required to keep football under control.

As for your point about tip top fitness, well, it's hardly a chore to hit the gym, there are plenty of members of the armed forces who are equally as fit as any footballer, the same goes for firefighters, mountain rescue and even those who just like to keep fit. Equally, while I'm sure they do entertain millions, I still maintain that a salary of £125,000 is, really, asmuch money as any man could possibly need.
No, it won't make you sufficiently wealthy to spunk, say, £25,000,000 on a hideous Cheshire Mansion, but it's sure as hell a comfortable living. Please don't think me rude, but take a look at your last pay slip from your employer. I bet it doesn't have a pound sign then six figures after it and I'm sure you manage to struggle along.

Matt.

happytorq wrote: Honestly, why aren't I in charge at the FA?

Because you're a bleddy Yank

Southampton Gull wrote:Because you're a bleddy Yank

While not, technically, a Yank - I'll concede the point.

You still have your English accent though, thank God

Southampton Gull wrote:You still have your English accent though, thank God

Hell, yes. The ladies love it. (they really do.) The day my accent goes is the day I jump off the Empire State Building.