The Hateful Eight

[number4.]

This is the important factor in all of this, there should a salary cap 100%.

If a team was allowed to spend say 100 million max on wages PA then you would get top players in their prime playing for other teams who have space in their budgets to entice them with a better pay packet. Put a cap on agent fees so they can only earn 500k from a single transfer and then we will stop heamorrhaging money from the game that the fans need to cover with ever higher match day prices.

Do that plus get owners to underwrite debt and I think that would be a half decent working solution.

Why on the world would PFA etc agree to a salary cap when the billions slosh around in TV deals, sponsorship & nation states sportswashing. They create the product & without them it doesnt work......

Re match day prices; they are a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things

 

[cwright75]

Spurs are headpatters? Colour me shocked.

alright connor lad - im a blue nose as you know , birmingham , all tho i love my everton connections , now im trying to workout whats going on here really

 

[The binman chronicles]

I can't see the Players Union agreeing with a salary cap. They'll want the door open for players to make as much as possible

Of course they won't but at somepoint for the good of the game it needs to happen.

Ronaldo/Messi etc. will still be very wealthy men with outside sponsorships that are uncapped. The like of the Tom Davies of this world will be a bit harder hit as they will have to be on the 10 to 15k week level. I won't shed a tear for them they will still be very rich compared to anyone else in life for kicking a bag of air around and not being particularly good at it either.

 

[GwladysPhil]

FFP wasn't created to protect clubs, it's because they want the same clubs with massive fan bases in the champions league every year as that's where the money is.

UEFA must have been fuming when Arsenal and United started slipping out and instead they got Spurs.

 

[H.H.]

Of course they won't but at somepoint for the good of the game it needs to happen.

Ronaldo/Messi etc. will still be very wealthy men with outside sponsorships that are uncapped. The like of the Tom Davies of this world will be a bit harder hit as they will have to be on the 10 to 15k week level. I won't shed a tear for them they will still be very rich compared to anyone else in life for kicking a bag of air around and not being particularly good at it either.

Although I also like the idea of a wage cap, the biggest clubs would still probably find a way of giving a player more money by "Sponsoring" them, a bit like in the old days when club directors would give X signing a "job" at one of he's companies and the player would do was clock in and go home?

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

In the end as long as the owner covers the debts each year from overspending to prevent a club going bust while trying to overreach then they should be allowed to spend whatever they want. That is the only way to give the chance for any club to have a chance to compete.

If that means the barcodes, Wolves, Villa, Leeds or whoever else go ahead of us then fine. Least we would have hope of a takeover at somepoint.

Else it will be year after year of the same few clubs that have climbed the greasy pole and have incomes 2/3/4-20 times the amount of others.

This is it, favours those with a large customer base to explo..., I mean draw support from.

 

[number4.]

In the end as long as the owner covers the debts each year from overspending to prevent a club going bust while trying to overreach then they should be allowed to spend whatever they want. That is the only way to give the chance for any club to have a chance to compete.

If that means the barcodes, Wolves, Villa, Leeds or whoever else go ahead of us then fine. Least we would have hope of a takeover at somepoint.

Else it will be year after year of the same few clubs that have climbed the greasy pole and have incomes 2/3/4-20 times the amount of others.

Covers is a very very vague word here, it is all fun and games til owner in question borrows against the club to cover transfers until it's broken

 

[H.H.]

FFP wasn't created to protect clubs, it's because they want the same clubs with massive fan bases in the champions league every year as that's where the money is.

UEFA must have been fuming when Arsenal and United started slipping out and instead they got Spurs.

No matter what UEFA may have thought, I would have liked Everton to have taken Man Utd's place.

 

[anton66]

FFP should only come into play once every team in th PL has spent the same amount of money as the biggest spenders over the last 10 years. Uefa should have a maximum amount over that period and when you reach it tough. Let’s all play catch up.

 

[toffeejack]

Hateful Eight lol
It has nothing to do with the fact that Everton are also hoping to splash large amounts of cash which current rules wouldn't allow.
If "Uncle Ussi" wasn't about Everton would also have been one of the teams, especially as there is also the chance they and most other teams could fall even further behind if the Newcastle takeover were to happen?

You're quite a patronising little t.. Aren't you?

 

[brigadier]

Be fantastic if you could only spend 25 percent more than the lowest spending team , kenwright would of been the greatest chairman ever.

 

[GwladysPhil]

No matter what UEFA may have thought, I would have liked Everton to have taken Man Utd's place.

You could replace spurs with most of the teams in the prem obviously including Everton and UEFA wouldn’t have been happy.

Theyre a bit shaken from the collapse of the original sky 4.

 

[jaycee]

Everybody knows FFP was set up to protect certain clubs interests,if the authorities wanted to protect the actual game they would ensure TV and prize money is more equally distributed,have a spend limit each season,stop teams stockpiling youth,lots of things could be done,but that would impact the elite group and governing bodies trough

 

[The binman chronicles]

Covers is a very very vague word here, it is all fun and games til owner in question borrows against the club to cover transfers until it's broken

It has to be crystal clear in the regulations, no club can have a net debt of x amount by a certain date or the TV payment will be withheld until it is reduced to the level deemed that the club won't go bust if a owner tries to overspend to get promotions/win trophies.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Hateful Eight lol
It has nothing to do with the fact that Everton are also hoping to splash large amounts of cash which current rules wouldn't allow.
If "Uncle Ussi" wasn't about Everton would also have been one of the teams, especially as there is also the chance they and most other teams could fall even further behind if the Newcastle takeover were to happen?

The idea that teams getting large cash injections from new ownership is more unfair than someone like United just having tons of cash is ludicrous. You either want spending controls for everyone and an actually level playing field or you don't. But the current FFP that City beat is clearly designed to allow the current rich clubs to always be the ones at the top and all the teams acting like City beating this is bad for the game are being disingenuous as they're bad for the game themselves.