|
|
Post by Mundell on Nov 9, 2023 11:29:36 GMT
I'm sure we'll hear more about this in one of Charlie Methven's podcasts. I have no doubt whatsoever that he'll say that it is an extremely positive development, with the step-down in the wage cap for clubs relegated from the Premier League to 85% of turnover in year one, 80% in year two and then 70% in year, no more than a nuance. The result will still be to immediately force very significant cuts in the wage bills of relegated clubs and, as result, dramatically close the gap between their wage bills and what will be affordable for CAFC.
Its often hard to know whether misleading headlines like the one above are simply wilful or whether the journalist concerned has simply made no effort to understand the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Nov 9, 2023 12:26:20 GMT
I'm sure we'll hear more about this in one of Charlie Methven's podcasts. I have no doubt whatsoever that he'll say that it is an extremely positive development, with the step-down in the wage cap for clubs relegated from the Premier League to 85% of turnover in year one, 80% in year two and then 70% in year, no more than a nuance. The result will still be to immediately force very significant cuts in the wage bills of relegated clubs and, as result, dramatically close the gap between their wage bills and what will be affordable for CAFC. Its often hard to know whether misleading headlines like the one above are simply wilful or whether the journalist concerned has simply made no effort to understand the issue. It's probable that somebody else writes the headlines as they piece each edition together. We've already explored the impact upon Championship clubs without parachute payments. And some will need to make serious cuts to comply. It might be worth visiting Swiss Ramble analysis and view clubs with parachute monies to see just how this will affect them in years one and two. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Nov 9, 2023 12:50:39 GMT
I'm sure we'll hear more about this in one of Charlie Methven's podcasts. I have no doubt whatsoever that he'll say that it is an extremely positive development, with the step-down in the wage cap for clubs relegated from the Premier League to 85% of turnover in year one, 80% in year two and then 70% in year, no more than a nuance. The result will still be to immediately force very significant cuts in the wage bills of relegated clubs and, as result, dramatically close the gap between their wage bills and what will be affordable for CAFC. Its often hard to know whether misleading headlines like the one above are simply wilful or whether the journalist concerned has simply made no effort to understand the issue. It's probable that somebody else writes the headlines as they piece each edition together. We've already explored the impact upon Championship clubs without parachute payments. And some will need to make serious cuts to comply. It might be worth visiting Swiss Ramble analysis and view clubs with parachute monies to see just how this will affect them in years one and two. We can get that from the first table in the first post on this thread seriouslyredFor example, Fulham’s wage bill for the 2021-22 season would be cut to £61m versus £90.4m. That’s fairly dramatic and likely to be vey disruptive. The key, of course, will be the penalties for non compliance. |
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Nov 9, 2023 13:38:05 GMT
It's probable that somebody else writes the headlines as they piece each edition together. We've already explored the impact upon Championship clubs without parachute payments. And some will need to make serious cuts to comply. It might be worth visiting Swiss Ramble analysis and view clubs with parachute monies to see just how this will affect them in years one and two. We can get that from the first table in the first post on this thread seriouslyredFor example, Fulham’s wage bill for the 2021-22 season would be cut to £61m versus £90.4m. That’s fairly dramatic and likely to be vey disruptive. The key, of course, will be the penalties for non compliance. They should remove players from their squad starting with the highest earners and working down until they are within the budget. Then the club can sell the players or have them on their wage bill and not be allowed to play them. That would seem a very suitable way of making clubs comply. |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Nov 9, 2023 15:01:20 GMT
We can get that from the first table in the first post on this thread seriouslyredFor example, Fulham’s wage bill for the 2021-22 season would be cut to £61m versus £90.4m. That’s fairly dramatic and likely to be vey disruptive. The key, of course, will be the penalties for non compliance. They should remove players from their squad starting with the highest earners and working down until they are within the budget. Then the club can sell the players or have them on their wage bill and not be allowed to play them. That would seem a very suitable way of making clubs comply. A transfer and registration embargo applied as soon as a club is over their SCMP limit will be the simplest, cleanest and fairest way to apply sanctions. Currently many clubs have gone over limit and dealt with the consequences much later. Either fines after promotion or going into administration after years of failing to reach the EPL. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Nov 10, 2023 11:06:53 GMT
“The sanctions available to the regulator will range from “naming and shaming”, fines, suspensions of individuals and withdrawal of a licence, but will be aimed to have “minimal impact on fans and players”.”
This is a quote from a recent article in the Times. It’s clear, notwithstanding all the brouhaha about the regulator, that it will be toothless. Almost any meaningful sanction would have some impact on fans or players or both. The reason for this approach is obvious. Government wants to appear to be solving a perceived problem while avoiding the risk of making any decisions which might be unpopular.
As result, the EPL and the EFL will remain responsible for deciding on, and then administering, sanctions on clubs for failures of compliance with spending rules. The problem with this is clear. The clubs which comprise the EPL and EFL, and who decide on the rules and any sanctions when they are broken, will be reluctant to be too tough. Each club will be aware that one day they might be the rule breaker. It appears that the regulator has stepped away from the one thing it might have done to improve matters. Quelle surprise.
That said, there is one very elegant way of ensuring compliance with UEFA’s Squad Cost Control Ratio and that would be to rule that at the end of each transfer window clubs were required to submit a squad list to the League the cost of which would ensure compliance, i.e. if their wage bill (along with all relevant adjustments for transfer fees paid and received etc.) wasn’t compliant they would be compelled to decide which players would be ineligible for selection until the wage bill fell sufficiently to accommodate them. Clubs playing ineligible players would forfeit any points won in the relevant fixture.
While not without its complexities, this could probably work and would have the benefit of being immediate. It won’t happen, of course, because clubs would never agree to it. The regulator could make it happen, but clearly won’t because it would be unpopular with the fans of any club impacted. The government is not trying to solve problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by valley on Jul 19, 2024 19:06:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Jul 19, 2024 20:21:55 GMT
Thanks for sharing that valley I wonder if this is the first tranche of the Bright Path Sports Partners investment announced in March? That announcement said that the US private equity fund had agreed to buy a 40% minority stake worth “up to” £105m. This is new cash. It’s interesting that Ipswich’s owners are happy to fund via equity rather via loans. That’s unusual. |
|
|
|
Post by weststandfruitloop on Jul 20, 2024 23:43:42 GMT
Thanks for sharing that valley I wonder if this is the first tranche of the Bright Path Sports Partners investment announced in March? That announcement said that the US private equity fund had agreed to buy a 40% minority stake worth “up to” £105m. This is new cash. It’s interesting that Ipswich’s owners are happy to fund via equity rather via loans. That’s unusual. Done just before July 1st noticeably, so part of their Championship rather than upcoming PL season accounts-wise. I don't know the exact rule changes between Champs and PL, but I'm guessing that timing isn't coincidental. |
|
