Amex_Charlie
New member
Money has ruined football and made players greedy, i think clubs should only be able to spend a certain amount on players ang wages. what do you think ? 
Money.
- Thread starter Amex_Charlie
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ
Hove / Παρος
Money has ruined football and made players greedy, i think clubs should only be able to spend a certain amount on players ang wages. what do you think ?
Pretty sure this is slowly being addressed...
Financial fair play ensures football's stability on UEFA.COM
Mammoth
Kickin' back
Agree but what can they do it about it? Salary caps are dubious and it would only take one club to scream 'restraint of trade' to the european commission and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
Art Vs Science
Banned
- Sep 1, 2010
- 6,419
I think either contracts should have a minimum percentage of loyalty in relation to length of contract or just change the whole contract system anyway. "Bennett signs new 3 and a half year deal" story for example is now completely worthless.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,409
money has ruined society and made people greedy. i think business should only be able to spend a certain amount on employee wages. what do you think ?
the UEFA solution, based on turnover, will only serve to fix the gap between the smaller and larger clubs. but wage caps will never work either, payment in kind, other behind the scenes deals would be rife. i dont know what the answer is, but i'm certain that bureaucratic intervention is not it.
the UEFA solution, based on turnover, will only serve to fix the gap between the smaller and larger clubs. but wage caps will never work either, payment in kind, other behind the scenes deals would be rife. i dont know what the answer is, but i'm certain that bureaucratic intervention is not it.
UEFA's Financial Fair Play scheme is an attempt by the big clubs to haul up the drawbridge and create a self serving elite to which no one else can join.
Players naturally go where the best money is offered, and that is from those clubs who have the highest TV revenues, i.e. those who compete in the Champions League. By introducing FFP the chances of smaller clubs qualifying for the CL is reduced, as any decent players/managers they have will be nabbed by others offering more money.
Looking at it, I still think you can drive a coach and horses through the rules. If (for example) Mansoor at City wanted to subsidise the club to the tune of £50m a year, all that City would have to do is to offer a special executive box to anyone paying £50m a year, and hey presto, it is counted as revenue instead of an investment.
Platini is a weasel of the highest order.
Players naturally go where the best money is offered, and that is from those clubs who have the highest TV revenues, i.e. those who compete in the Champions League. By introducing FFP the chances of smaller clubs qualifying for the CL is reduced, as any decent players/managers they have will be nabbed by others offering more money.
Looking at it, I still think you can drive a coach and horses through the rules. If (for example) Mansoor at City wanted to subsidise the club to the tune of £50m a year, all that City would have to do is to offer a special executive box to anyone paying £50m a year, and hey presto, it is counted as revenue instead of an investment.
Platini is a weasel of the highest order.
They do, with 3.5 years of his contract remaining, the Albion can get £1.5million for Bennett, if it was six months it would be £250-300k (as per Hammond or Kris Commons to Celtic).
Art Vs Science
Banned
- Sep 1, 2010
- 6,419
I meant with having to stay at a club for a minimum term of signed contract
GT49er
Well-known member
The only way to do it would be for the Football League to become the employer, effectively acting as an employment agency. That way, there would be a fixed basic salary for all clubs in any division, plus (fixed) appearance money, win bonuses, increments for long service, etc. The PFA would then become the negotiator for players's wages, rather than the agents. It would be complicated, but nothing a modern computer programme coulddn't sort out.
The league would pay the wages, and invoice the clubs. If one club wanted a player with another club, transfer fees would be involved as they are now. Penalties for clubs trying to circumvent the scheme by making payments direct to players would need to be draconian (automatic relegation, for a start, plus a whopping fine).
Of course, a few of the highest earners would squeal when their existing contracts came to an end and they went on to the standard wage structure; they might go abrosd - but so what? Other leagues aren't awash with money either, and if it worked here it might be followed elsewhere.
The league would pay the wages, and invoice the clubs. If one club wanted a player with another club, transfer fees would be involved as they are now. Penalties for clubs trying to circumvent the scheme by making payments direct to players would need to be draconian (automatic relegation, for a start, plus a whopping fine).
Of course, a few of the highest earners would squeal when their existing contracts came to an end and they went on to the standard wage structure; they might go abrosd - but so what? Other leagues aren't awash with money either, and if it worked here it might be followed elsewhere.
This is one ting that has always baffled me about football. If teams toss the dosh they can buy the league and success. Here in North America almost every sport has a salary cap in place and it allows for a much more competitive league and anyone can win on any given sunday. Now every league still has their power house teams with a lot of good quality talent. but there is no one team that can just load their team with superstars (except in baseball, but thats not a sport). There is only so much a player can get paid and it doesnt matter where they go it wont go any higher. It actually creates loyalty to clubs and keeps core groups of players together. Would be fantastic if football could get the same thing and break up this top 4 nonsense.
As the days go on though its becoming more and more apparent that this style of buying and such just is not sustainable as the massive debts more and more clubs are getting into financial trouble. When the plug gets pulled at eastlands watch that club collapse.
As the days go on though its becoming more and more apparent that this style of buying and such just is not sustainable as the massive debts more and more clubs are getting into financial trouble. When the plug gets pulled at eastlands watch that club collapse.
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
Shouldn't that be poorest? Man Utd owe a lot more than us for instance.
Not compared to their revenue stream they don't.
or their purchasing power.
Salary caps have kept everything in check and any team can win Lord Stanley any year. Brilliant. But like I said in my post above, once the plug is pulled or the bubble bursts for these big boys they are screwed.
drew
Drew
Anyone who thinks a player signing a contract is demonstrating a long term committment to the club is living in cloud cuckoo land. A contract is merely a protection for the club should someone want to sign them in these post Bosman days and a protection for the player in case they get injured. It is nothing more and nothing less. It's been this way for many years and you must be deaf dumb and blind if you hadn't noticed this (or playing too much pinball). So Bennett submits a transfer request. All that means is probably contractually we don't have to pay him off, ie we are not selling him against his will. If we don't want him to go we slap on a high fee that the likes of Norwich will not pay, ie £5 million. Or we say we want to clear £5m over any sell on clause with Wolves. It may sound high but when they talk about the fee for Chamberlain, who didn't look that good against Utd why not! Of course Bennett could throw his toys out of the pram but that would not serve him well for the future (look at how that cost Leon Knight a career) and besides, I doubt that Bennett is the sort of person to do that.
Bloom has made his position clear so I don't expect Bennett to go this transfer window as that would mean TB ending up with large amounts of egg on face. Not a good look for a poker player.
As I see, Bennett will stay till the end of the season and then the position will be reviewed. Can't really ask for more than that.
Bloom has made his position clear so I don't expect Bennett to go this transfer window as that would mean TB ending up with large amounts of egg on face. Not a good look for a poker player.
As I see, Bennett will stay till the end of the season and then the position will be reviewed. Can't really ask for more than that.
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
According to Henry Winter...
UEFA's one adult, one kid Champions League Final package is £338, plus a £26 admin fee. £26!?
UEFA's one adult, one kid Champions League Final package is £338, plus a £26 admin fee. £26!?
thejackal
Throbbing Member
Money has ruined football and made players greedy, i think clubs should only be able to spend a certain amount on players ang wages. what do you think ?
Money has ruined mankind and made everyone greedy, more like...
As far as I'm concerned there's only one true passage in the Bible:
Timothy 6:10 - "the love of money is the root of all evil"
OK, wrong thread!
tubaman
Member
- Nov 2, 2009
- 748
If clubs are allowed to walk away from their debts either by administration or by finding a new owner who pays off existing debts at a fraction of the value (Sheffield Wed for example) without incurring a hefty penalty, they will continue to operate beyond their means. This isn't fair on other clubs who manage their affairs. What about automatic relegation as a minimum penalty for going into administration or sidestepping debt and additional penalties / or further relegation depending on the amount of debt unpaid.