Premier League wages [are a disgrace] - from the BBC

They do wage capping in the AFL - Aussie rules top league. Its a good system. The bottom sides also get the best draft pics for the start of each new season meaning theyll steadily get a lot stronger if they reach their potential.

Plus it makes it harder to stay at the top for a long period.

Originally Posted by Stickman

They do wage capping in the AFL - Aussie rules top league. Its a good system. The bottom sides also get the best draft pics for the start of each new season meaning theyll steadily get a lot stronger if they reach their potential.

Plus it makes it harder to stay at the top for a long period.

Oh, is that another one country sport?

Drafts

Yeah can see the whole scouting/acadamy process currently in place at every football club in the world being scrapped in favour of a varsity/draft process!

It's the way forward!

Mao, its an uphill task on here sometimes innt ?

Originally Posted by denis lawless

Mao, its an uphill task on here sometimes innt ?

Certainly is mate

I hate the amount players get paid, and personally think they should be paid in jam butties!


Can see UEFA going for that can't you!?

Originally Posted by Mao's Favourite Starling

Certainly is mate

I hate the amount players get paid, and personally think they should be paid in jam butties!


Can see UEFA going for that can't you!?

my sentiments exactly mate ......

Originally Posted by rafabio

then why the £#%&! are you moaning about Glazers? They have done nothing wrong since they have followed normal business practice.

i don't want them at the club or the debt that came with it as a fan, as an emotive response but they did nothing wrong legally

you do understand we were a PLC and anybody that could raise the capital could buy us?

your naivety in terms of how you think these things could be implemented is the issue

the difference between football and other businesses is that clubs enter into competition under rules that they unanimously agree on

do you think clubs that have spent 50 years being successful, creating support and an image that can support them financially to carry on that success will just surrender it?

Originally Posted by florentino ariza

i don't want them at the club or the debt that came with it as a fan, as an emotive response but they did nothing wrong legally

you do understand we were a PLC and anybody that could raise the capital could buy us?

your naivety in terms of how you think these things could be implemented is the issue

the difference between football and other businesses is that clubs enter into competition under rules that they unanimously agree on

do you think clubs that have spent 50 years being successful, creating support and an image that can support them financially to carry on that success will just surrender it?

I am not at all saying the idea would work. In fact nobody can say whether it could or could not work. But the point is why not give it a try instead of being downright dismissive?

As we have seen UEFA are able to get in this financial fair play rule which few years back I am sure many were thinking not at all possible.

Nobody is talking about glazers taking over a club illegally. We are here only talking about moral issues.

Neither are you making an emotive response on glazers. you are taking a moral stance which is what Platini has exactly done by bringing financial fair play.

There is nothing wrong in what the arabs are doing at city or roman did at chelsea. But UEFA are hoping to stop it. Why? Not that it is illegal. But because it is immoral. It's not fair that all a club needs to do is wait for a sugar daddy to become successful.

The salary cap also is a similar thing.

Why do UEFA want to outlaw all under 18 transfers? Not because its illegal. Because again its immoral. Majority of teenagers are not capable of making a decision themselves and hence will be hugely dependent on family/agents to make those decisions which as we have seen can be utilized improperly. And its only fair that the club which has invested in that player from age of 9/11/14 will get at least minimum benefit from that player achieving his potential.

I can't be bothered to argue more if we want to take argument towards legal issues.

Neither should anyone moan about glazers for debt/ticket prices/fans being treated as dumb customers.

Originally Posted by rafabio

I am not at all saying the idea would work. In fact nobody can say whether it could or could not work. But the point is why not give it a try instead of being downright dismissive?

As we have seen UEFA are able to get in this financial fair play rule which few years back I am sure many were thinking not at all possible.

Nobody is talking about glazers taking over a club illegally. We are here only talking about moral issues.

Neither are you making an emotive response on glazers. you are taking a moral stance which is what Platini has exactly done by bringing financial fair play.

There is nothing wrong in what the arabs are doing at city or roman did at chelsea. But UEFA are hoping to stop it. Why? Not that it is illegal. But because it is immoral. It's not fair that all a club needs to do is wait for a sugar daddy to become successful.

The salary cap also is a similar thing.

Why do UEFA want to outlaw all under 18 transfers? Not because its illegal. Because again its immoral. Majority of teenagers are not capable of making a decision themselves and hence will be hugely dependent on family/agents to make those decisions which as we have seen can be utilized improperly. And its only fair that the club which has invested in that player from age of 9/11/14 will get at least minimum benefit from that player achieving his potential.

I can't be bothered to argue more if we want to take argument towards legal issues.

Neither should anyone moan about glazers for debt/ticket prices/fans being treated as dumb customers.

morality?

are you £#%&!ing serious?

and what are you talking about re legality? you are talking about changing the rules/laws governing the game and employment within it which clearly is is a legal issue

Originally Posted by Mao's Favourite Starling

I think it is you being naive rather than us being thick and ignorant...

Are teams going to agree to something knowing there is a chance the likes of Real will stoop to any level and (in the case of us for e.g.) cherry-pick Rooney et al.

It's like expecting Turkeys to vote for Christmas

While I agree a salary cap is probably unworkable (although the govorning bodies should certainly try something) how is the situation outlined above any different to what we have now?

Originally Posted by dodger

While I agree a salary cap is probably unworkable (although the govorning bodies should certainly try something) how is the situation outlined above any different to what we have now?

Because if a team wanted to offer a player more, at this moment in time they can do so perfectly legally under the laws of the game

Under a salary cap they would be breaking the rules and as such by agreeing to one they are handcuffing themselves leaving the way open for more underhand clubs to exploit it.

It has happened in this very city in the past with one of our own players the last time we had a salary cap

Originally Posted by Mao's Favourite Starling

Because if a team wanted to offer a player more, at this moment in time they can do so perfectly legally under the laws of the game

Under a salary cap they would be breaking the rules and as such by agreeing to one they are handcuffing themselves leaving the way open for more underhand clubs to exploit it.

It has happened in this very city in the past with one of our own players the last time we had a salary cap

Who are these more underhand clubs and who are the honest ones? I can't seem to split them along those lines. Certainly not the rich ones.
Surely if there are loopholes they will be exploited by all and we will only have the same situation we already have. It would make the cap pointless but it would hardly be a disadvantage.

Originally Posted by dodger

Who are these more underhand clubs and who are the honest ones? I can't seem to split them along those lines. Certainly not the rich ones.
Surely if there are loopholes they will be exploited by all and we will only have the same situation we already have. It would make the cap pointless but it would hardly be a disadvantage.

What?

Different sport but:

In 2010, Melbourne Storm officials confessed to running a well-organized dual contract system which left the NRL unable to know of at least $1.85 million of payments made to players outside of the $4.6875 million salary cap between 2006 and 2010, including $850,000 in 2010 alone. The club was stripped of their 2007 and 2009 premierships and their 2006–2008 minor premierships, ordered to repay $1.1 million in prize money (which will be re-distributed equally between the remaining 15 clubs), fined $500,000, deducted all 8 premiership points received during the season, and barred from receiving premiership points for the rest of the season, meaning that the club will win the 2010 wooden spoon. The club has since taken legal action.

That is comparable to Citeh being able to pay higher wages than other teams under the status-quo is it?

Your comment regarding honest and dis-honest clubs and being unable to split them is pointless!

Salary cap breaches happen year-in year-out, it is human nature to exploit 'loopholes' but do you think the clubs who have no intention of exploiting them or downright breaking the rule are willing to take that risk?

That was my point about Turkeys voting for Christmas

the thing i think that is most laughable about this whole thing is that fans and media blame the clubs and players for these wages

its simple £#%&!ing supply and demand. WE as fans pay what is asked for tickets, kits, sky etc ad infinitum

We are screaming about signing players and being competitive, even if at most clubs this is financially unsound ie to a certain extent to appease fans the clubs spend beyond their means

Its all well and good complaining about the business model but totally hypocritical when we are the ones who support it

Originally Posted by Mao's Favourite Starling

What?

Different sport but:

In 2010, Melbourne Storm officials confessed to running a well-organized dual contract system which left the NRL unable to know of at least $1.85 million of payments made to players outside of the $4.6875 million salary cap between 2006 and 2010, including $850,000 in 2010 alone. The club was stripped of their 2007 and 2009 premierships and their 2006–2008 minor premierships, ordered to repay $1.1 million in prize money (which will be re-distributed equally between the remaining 15 clubs), fined $500,000, deducted all 8 premiership points received during the season, and barred from receiving premiership points for the rest of the season, meaning that the club will win the 2010 wooden spoon. The club has since taken legal action.

That is comparable to Citeh being able to pay higher wages than other teams under the status-quo is it?

Your comment regarding honest and dis-honest clubs and being unable to split them is pointless!

Salary cap breaches happen year-in year-out, it is human nature to exploit 'loopholes' but do you think the clubs who have no intention of exploiting them or downright breaking the rule are willing to take that risk?

That was my point about Turkeys voting for Christmas

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You've given an example of a club that has broken a salary cap and been stripped of it's titles. That's good, it should put the others off doing it. And?

Comparable to City? In that they've attracted players and paid them more? Yes it is. Did City break any rules? No. Would they make illegal payments if there was a salary cap? Who knows, but given your example above there would be little gain.

That seems reasonable to me.

You're right about my comment regarding dishonest clubs being pointless, The answer is pretty plain after all. I just wondered who you meant when you mentioned underhand clubs, given that they're rotten in the main.

Surely, if such a system were to be introduced a system of policing it would be introduced too. And, as per your example above, transgressions are heavily punished.

Originally Posted by florentino ariza

the thing i think that is most laughable about this whole thing is that fans and media blame the clubs and players for these wages

its simple £#%&!ing supply and demand. WE as fans pay what is asked for tickets, kits, sky etc ad infinitum
We are screaming about signing players and being competitive, even if at most clubs this is financially unsound ie to a certain extent to appease fans the clubs spend beyond their means

Its all well and good complaining about the business model but totally hypocritical when we are the ones who support it

Many have stopped though. Sure they're replaced by a queue of others, creating the demand, but therin lies the problem for a lot of people. The game has been taken away from them. They're not supporting anybody's business model, they'd rather support a club.
And we have to remember this was, and is, all flogged to people via the creation of the premier league and sky dishes. And it was flogged by the men who stood to, and have, made the most money out of it.
The players also saw this, knew they were instrumntal in the money machine and demanded their cut. Quite rightly. The players have obviously benfited massively but we have now reached a point where their demands are far outstripping what the clubs can afford to pay them. If we're talking about normal business practices that simply wouldn't happen in any industry.
The players obviously won't back down and the clubs are scared to in case they lose their place in the trough (which is, ironically, doing them no good at all).
It can't continue, something will give one way or another. They either do something about it voluntarily or they will be overtaken by events. imo

just because there isn't a salary cap now that does not mean that there can't be one

just because some will flout the rules does not mean that there should not be rules


the salary cap would not impinge on current market position or even on new money coming into the game - why would it?

it should not be based on turnover or revenues generated either. these things would be factored in anyway in the assembly of a 25 man squad.

Originally Posted by Svens robotic nob

All these posts and yet nobody has come up with an answer to this.

How is the salary cap enforceable?

Firstly, will it be off gross or net wage, as we have so many different tax laws across the EU so it would make it extremely difficult to maintain a level playing field.

Secondly, do you honestly believe that players, clubs and agents would not set up offshore companies and be paid into there.

There will never be true transparency, it;s a utopia to have a salary cap, but will never be acheivable

Amen

and much more succinctly than I have been able to put it

Originally Posted by Svens robotic nob

All these posts and yet nobody has come up with an answer to this.

How is the salary cap enforceable?

Firstly, will it be off gross or net wage, as we have so many different tax laws across the EU so it would make it extremely difficult to maintain a level playing field.

Secondly, do you honestly believe that players, clubs and agents would not set up offshore companies and be paid into there.

There will never be true transparency, it;s a utopia to have a salary cap, but will never be acheivable

hmmm.... I don't think kobe bryant or lebron james have set up any offshore companies where extra money goes into.

Because by your logic, surely lebron james would sign for lakers or celtics ( the 2 best teams in NBA ) and get extra money to go into their 'offshore companies'. But what do we see!! he will sign for one of new jersey nets, knicks, miami heat who are not even one of the top 8 teams in the NBA!!

I mean how dumb is lebron james!! if only he had Svens robotic nob's brain

Originally Posted by rafabio

hmmm.... I don't think kobe bryant or lebron james have set up any offshore companies where extra money goes into.

Because by your logic, surely lebron james would sign for lakers or celtics ( the 2 best teams in NBA ) and get extra money to go into their 'offshore companies'. But what do we see!! he will sign for one of new jersey nets, knicks, miami heat who are not even one of the top 8 teams in the NBA!!

I mean how dumb is lebron james!! if only he had Svens robotic nob's brain

how much does lebron james get paid?

Originally Posted by florentino ariza

how much does lebron james get paid?

$15.8 million/year