the earl percy
Central Defender
I dont know the ins and outs ,however rugby union has a salary cap ,which was challenged in the courts ,and was deemed to be legal
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thats true and nobody denies that but if you have 30000 through the door but can only spend the same as a club that has 3000 then thats wrong. Having a big support should give you a leg up , thats the whole point of it. We go to cheer them on and help create income so the club hopefully can use our money to improve our match day experience.It's ludicrous, it may be illegal, and should be overturned but let's not pretend it is the reason we don't go up this season. If we don't go up this season it's because of abysmal management, recruitment and decision making at all levels for years.
Before the salary cap, when we still had parachute payments, the most expensive squad in League One history, the biggest crowds in League One history, spent more than the rest of the Division combined on new players, and broke the League One transfer record, we still couldn't get promoted.
Still waiting for somebody to have a backed legal challenge. Something like this may well end up in the supreme court as its in all parties interests to get a binding ruling. My worry is if this does not happen we'll end up with some time of fudged rules that help nobody.Not the Top 20 Pod posting on Twitter that there are rumors that the salary cap may be overturned.
Hope to god this is true. Yes clubs need to be sustainable in this division but a flat cap is not the way to go. There is no reason a club our size should be limited to the same cap as clubs like Accrington Stanley for example who pull in significantly less revenue per season.
The cap well and truly screwed us over this January and may well be one of the factors In us not going up at the end of this season.
Just right anarl.
The only reason it came about is because the smaller clubs stamped their feet and cried about how unfair it was that the likes of us and Portsmouth etc could afford to pay more.
And people stated that percentage of turnover unfairly benefitted those clubs who were bigger and better supported abroad and those who made the champions league and was therefore protectionist of the "Big 4" (the predecessor to the big 6)It wasn’t about a fixed cap in the PL though it was a percentage of turnover. I’m pretty sure nobody would be complaining of it was about percentage of turnover.
I reckon the PFA will finally take action in about August when they realise that a large number of their members are out of contract and having to either take a massive pay cut, move abroad or hope that a Championship club might want them to warm their bench.
Thats true and nobody denies that but if you have 30000 through the door but can only spend the same as a club that has 3000 then thats wrong. Having a big support should give you a leg up , thats the whole point of it. We go to cheer them on and help create income so the club hopefully can use our money to improve our match day experience.
A player is not quite good enough as is ageing in championship, hes 31 but still a decent player. The club are bringing youth through and thank him for his service but wont be renewing his contract of 15,000 a week. Yes he could look at 1st division and a decent size club could give him 10,000 a week............well no, it has to be 2500.
Its not right.
Let’s not forget deferred payments, signing bonuses, post career book deals, a house for your parents, ...
So many ways around it.
If the salary cap sticks then I think SAFC will have an extremely hard time getting back top flight. We’d be Chelsea’s youth team. Maybe SD can start a player leasing scheme like he does with cars.
I think some of the rules they put in place (squad limits, freedom to pay young players outside of the cap) are inherently good things that would have forced a club to exhibit the right behaviours. With a total cap based on recurring income, there's still a hell of a lot of scope for 'bad' or wasteful behaviour within that limit. I maybe have more trust that the club will act appropriately now, given the new people that are in place. However, there's still the possibility that they do things that hurt the long term future of the club. If we've voluntarily imposed the sorts of limits that these regulations described - but at a total salary limit more appropriate for a club of our means - we'll have the best of both worlds IMO.Clearly, some FPP rules are essential. However, I can't see too much wrong with a cap based on a percentage of recurring income (ie what's classed as turnover in a set of football clubs account. That would still be tighter than the previous rules, which allowed for incoming transfer fees and owner input to be classed as income, but still allow a variable cap proportionate to the size of a club.
It's immoral, it needs sorting, if the PFA weren't infighting re Gordon "bloody" Taylor's salary, period of notice etc, they'd have it knocked on the head. It should be a rolling 3 years and be some fair multiple. In all but the Premier League I would say that combined salary and transfer budget should be something like
90% of matchday income
70% of TV income
50% of sponsorship income all aggregated then averaged over 3 years. Hence the onus is on bums on seats and over generous "sponsorship" would have less impact.
Which just led to some of perceived better players in this league, like Fraser, signing for teams as they had no other option.