Jump to content
I will no longer be developing resources for Invision Community Suite ×
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Recommended Posts

Posted
  Rimbeux said:

Farcical. What's to stop the man sponsoring Chelsea shirts to the tune of £100m a year. I'm all for solvency rules, but how the hell do they police that

 

Salary caps with a luxury tax for anything over the cap.

Posted
  New York Red said:

Salary caps with a luxury tax for anything over the cap.

 

Hopefully to be declared illegal - although there'd probably a farcical interval before the case concluded its passage through the courts.

Posted
  New York Red said:

Salary caps with a luxury tax for anything over the cap.

 

Never get away with imposing a maximum wage, having to be solvent has some legs, but anything involving capping is full of holes and to work properly would involve something similar to nationalisiing an entire industry with all the mud and resistance that would face.

Posted

There are exceptions to every rule from a business standpoint, and I think football should be one of them. I'm a big believer in free markets. If anything, I'd say I'm a Libertarian with a Socialist streak. But, I really think that instances of teams like Chelsea behaving the way they do is bad for the game.

 

I'd make salary caps mandatory. I'd force FA's to have them, but the individual FA's could decide what they are. I'm Ok with having caveats to them also. I'd maybe allow a luxury tax of 10-20% for salaries over the salary cap with that money to be dispersed to the teams from that divison who are below the salary cap.

 

I wouldn't be averse to exemptions to the cap also. Maybe one to three players players who wouldn't be included in the total cap.

 

Tenure could be considered too. Players who have stuck with a club for five years or more could be exempted.

 

The cap would have to be different for every division also. You get a boost if you move up and it gets cut if you get relegated.

 

But, financial prudence and competition is what makes the game healthy. Chelsea having the massive spending power that they do just isn't good for the game. It needs to be different for football because it is like no other industry. Abramovich loves Chelsea (I suppose). He throws loads of his money into it because he has an emotional attachment to them. That would never happen to his interests in another industry -- they simply don't have the same emotional drive. That's why it is different in my opinion.

 

If there was plenty of thought given to it, something can be done.

Posted

It can be done, but like most things there has to be a will for it. The principle is not an issue, but the reality is. If there is any issue of force coming into this, ie a central UEFA/FIFA directive then there will be civil war, disobedience and corruption of the rules and breakaway organisations.

 

The more powerful clubs just wont wear it, G14 currently has it's own ethical code about wage percentage and I don't see them going any furher than that, too much self interest. What we are seeing is some powerful lobbyists, the Germans, trying to find a way to compete post the collapse of their tv market.

Posted

the best thing to do, is set some 'game rules'

 

each club must have wages as a percentage of turnover.

 

the number of players in first team squad should be 'X'

 

each first team squad should contain X number of players from home country.

 

each club must publish their accounts annually and be a running concern.

---

 

With the wages, perhaps some flexibility based on league position last season, number of seasons in premier league, success in europe etc.

Posted

how is it a restriction of trade? Its the rules of the game. Its like saying the goalkeeper is getting in the way of me scoring, so he's stopping me doing my job.

 

no is 'forced' to compete, but if you do want to, play by the rules.

Posted (edited)

i think it's a joke. there are numerous g14 clubs that have been on a completely different level when it comes to spending for years and years. chelsea obviously have a lot more but why bring it in now? because these teams are threatened. its hardly fair to say you cr going an only spend a set percentage of your income either as many teams are never going to be as exotic and valuable as the likes of us, real madrid, ac milan, manu, etc.

 

it is farcical and it simply wont happen - as you say it would contradict too many EU rules to mention and at the end of the day chelsea can afford far better lawyers!

 

 

...

 

 

... sorry one final point. if someting like this was actually possible it would have been done in the US years and years ago in football, baseball or basketball. looking the other day there's a short stopper out there who currently gets $220 / year just from his club - take into account sponsorship deals?! makes you want to cry doesn't it!

Edited by spk
Posted (edited)
  spk said:

... sorry one final point. if someting like this was actually possible it would have been done in the US years and years ago in football, baseball or basketball. looking the other day there's a short stopper out there who currently gets $220 / year just from his club - take into account sponsorship deals?! makes you want to cry doesn't it!

I assume you're talking about Alex Rodriguez, who has a 10-year $250 million contract with the Yankees, i.e. 25 mil a year. Still too much money for catching a ball with a glove, but a bit better than $220 million a year (unless you actually meant $220 a year, which is what they pay me to play shortstop ;) )

 

And salary caps are enforced in most major US sports (which are as close to a spending limit as you will get since player transfers are mostly trade-based and not cash-based). You just have the option of ignoring it and paying a luxury tax, which gets distributed to the other teams in the league.

Edited by CaptainXabi
Posted

yeah thats the one ... insane money for catching a ball. unfortunately i suspect uefa lack the intelligence and the power to go through with something like this. this is considerably more drastic that using cameras, implementing technologies for tracking the ball across a goal, handling drug abuse or more recently dealing with "simulation"

Posted

US sport is also very centralised and the outfits are franchised which allows a lot more control over the rules of the game. Looking at rugby for example, where the clubs are far less powerful than in football, there are huge problems trying to establish new rules of the game to the extent that the ruling body is considering buying out all the owners to progress.

Posted
  John L said:

What kind of 'industry' tries to put up barriers to people investing in it? F*cking ridiculous.

 

Your problem is that you are just a fascist capitalist. An exploiter of the masses. :P:D

Posted
  New York Red said:

Your problem is that you are just a fascist capitalist. An exploiter of the masses. :P:D

 

:cool:

 

  Paddy 66 said:

It's a restriction of trade and i can't seeing it happening. Actually goes against what the EU is meant to stand for.

 

Exactly right and exactly why this won't happen. Or at least if it does happen it'll be done in such a ham-fisted way that the courts will soon throw it out.

Posted

There's a salary cap in Rugby League which actually works pretty well.

 

Don't see there shouldn't be something similar in football.

Posted

There's plenty of other examples of restraint of trade knocking about. The EU could horse trade around this quite effectively.

Posted (edited)
  matty said:

There's plenty of other examples of restraint of trade knocking about. The EU could horse trade around this quite effectively.

 

 

You have to have the clubs agreement, it has to come from them, any attempt to impose regulations will end up with war. Rugby league is entirely different, it's virtually a franchise system, it's very centralised, and all the clubs are partners in an attempt to grow a minority sport whilst keeping the game solvent. There are even relegation exemptions handed out to protect clubs survival.

Edited by Rimbeux
Posted
  Rimbeux said:

You have to have the clubs agreement, it has to come from them, any attempt to impose regulations will end up with war. Rugby league is entirely different, it's virtually a franchise system, it's very centralised, and all the clubs are partners in an attempt to grow the sport whilst keeping the game solvent. There are even relegation exemptions handed out to protect clubs survival.

 

I don't think it's at all accurate to call RL a franchise, to be honest.

Posted
  Scot said:

I don't think it's at all accurate to call RL a franchise, to be honest.

 

 

I do recognise it's not a full franchise system, but the cetralised expansion into London and France, with the protection handed out to these created teams goes a lot of the way there.

 

  New York Red said:

I see nothing wrong in regulating things. It makes for a far more financially solvent and healthy league.

 

 

I agree, but lets get away from theory into how it's done. Unless you can sell it to the clubs, or even have them driving the changes it will be a mess.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...