So we should be hoovering up any talent now
Sunderland will oppose a flat salary cap
- Thread starter Grumpy Old Man
- Start date
- Status
So we should be hoovering up any talent now
mogget
Winger
That isn't true.
NFL players have guaranteed money and incentive money
If they cut a player with guaranteed money then they still have to pay that but they don't pay any incentives that havent been hit.
They normally structure the contracts so the guaranteed money is the first few seasons and incentive money is more of the later years of the contract.
flusheding
Striker
Who should be earning 10k a week?
No one needs that amount of money, but if society allows people to be far richer than others then why should footballers be punished?
No one is punishing them as they move up levels they get paid better, it’s quite clear some players are earning or being paid big money a cap will leave teams with options to either pay 1 guy a lot or have many on a smaller wage
You support this? Have you thought it through? Promotion a nightmare, clubs who make more than their outgoing wages, they keep as profit?
It has to be a percentage based on income. and phased in
H
Having seen different comps around the world use a cap and how they spend additional income on the club it’s a no brainer for a healthy competition, no doubt their is some issues regarding player contracts for relegated teams to be sorted but on a whole it works
Mag? you have to be
So we earn more money than any fucker in this league, and we have to keep any profit in the bank/owners pocket ?
Anyone relegated is immediately fucked
What a f***ing stupid idea, but The EFL will probably bring it in, to try and limit the damage they have caused by their f***ing hopeless fair and proper persons test,which has failed spectacularly
Not read the whole thread but you are absolutely right to oppose it. The mouth piece is also right when he says it's about levelling the playing field. I hope you can convince enough clubs that it is bollocks.
It’s a level of detail on NFL contracts I didn’t intend on getting into for risk of boring non-NFL fans. Signing bonuses are guaranteed money as they become due on signing, though they’re paid in three instalments across the first year and pro-rata’d on the salary cap for the duration of the contract. After that is depends on your bargaining position. Kirk Cousins parlayed an extremely strong position with the Vikings to get a fully guaranteed three year deal, Michael Pierce had a decent bargaining position and got his first year salary fully guaranteed, and his second year salary guaranteed for injury which will become fully guaranteed if he’s on the roster on the third day of the league year. Meaning the Vikings can cut him at the start of the second year and as long as he isn’t injured they owe him no more money. Meanwhile at the bottom end of the scale, Brady Aiello signed with Vikings for just $45,000 guaranteed money on a $2.3 million total value contract and he could be cut in his first year at any time for just the $45,000 hit.
In the context of EFL teams being relegated and needing to get rid of players, and applying the NFL model, then given the players should have spent at least a season on their current contract most players should be able to be released with little to no more money owed. If they have to pay up contracts to release them, then getting under the lower division’s salary cap is much harder. Teams could be given salary cap relief for any payments made to players they release, though whilst it would help with the cap it doesn’t help with the bank balance. Buying are often in a strong position when it comes to picking the bones off relegated clubs but it would be even more so if the club was forced to sell to get under a smaller salary cap.
Thinking on this further, if the cap is percentage of income, which would seem a sensible way to do it, which season’s income is it based on? This is especially relevant for promoted and relegated clubs. The NFL’s salary cap is based on the previous season’s income because that is actual data they have. To base it on the upcoming season’s income would involve some guesswork. Basing an EFL club’s salary cap on a percentage of their previous season’s income would put promoted clubs at a massive disadvantage and relegated clubs at a massive advantage. A flat cap figure for every team in the division avoids this and may be why it’s being mooted as the way to go.
Last edited:
Grumpy Old Man
Striker
It works in the NFL because it's a closed shop. There's nowhere else meaningful for players to go, unless you count the CFL. Player contracts have to be paid up in full, by the way. Utterly unaffordable, even without salary cap considerations. You'd end up here with the ridiculous situation of two divisions above with a salary cap, with two uncapped divisions above, and an entire uncapped non-league system below. The L2 proposed limit is so low that players will get higher offers from Conference sides. The limits are not only inequitable, they're farcically low. There are probably less then a quarter of L1 teams currently under the proposed cap. You said that the ratio between highest and lowest incomes in the NFL is 3. In L1 it's more like 6.
Last edited:
Yes, absolutely agree and said as much in my initial post. The EPL would never introduce a salary cap because they’d lose players to overseas leagues and we’d be back to the 80s. Open shop and promotion/relegation are both massively problematic for introducing a salary cap in the EFL. On the other hand, given too much money is spent on wages by EFL clubs at the moment and they face a COVID-sized hole in their finances which may need a government and/or EPL bailout to fill, then a salary cap could be forced on them whether they want it or not
Y
This cap isn’t about Sunderland but for the good of the game and fair competition, the club will have advantages like non playing staff academy, facilities and resources
Presumably transfer fees also. The wealthier clubs can already pay higher transfer fees but if wages are driven down and capped across the board then they become even more important as a way for wealthier clubs to use their financial advantage. It does beg the question that if a cap is introduced on salary but not transfer fee spending, will the same amount of money ultimately be spent but shifted away from wages and towards transfer fees?
I
Its a good question and clubs are very quick to find loop holes
flusheding
Striker
Give them free parking at the academy.
Its not meant to be about fair competition though. I mean, why have fair competition in league one and two but not in the other leagues in the pyramid? It's nonsensical. It's just meant to be about ensuring clubs don't overspend and go bust, but as people keep saying, this isn't the way to do it. If club A has 10 times the turnover of club B then it can safely, sustainably, offer higher wages. It has to be done as a percentage of turnover, but with SCMP they're already meant to have that, so why not just tweak it? If they want fair competition that's a totally different argument but I'd argue that's more important the higher up the pyramid you get where the big prizes are competed for, so again it's daft just doing it for these leagues
- Status
