Premier League Clubs plan to introduce salary caps.

Cantona's Collars

In an upcoming meeting of Premier League Chairmen,they plan to introduce their own version of FFP & want to stop spiralling wages and agents fees.With the new £5 billion tv deal they don't want this cash to end up going into paying sky high wages & fees to agents.

Premier League owners, including Roman Abramovich and the Glazer family, are close to agreeing a crackdown on players’ wages.

Talks have already taken place between all 20 top-flight clubs about introducing their own version of financial fairplay and a formal outline could be agreed later this month when Premier League chairmen meet in London on November 15.

There is a growing desire among the Premier League’s international owners to keep a big slice of what could be £5billion from the new television deals that start next year, rather than see it all go to players and their agents.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2227488/Roman-Abramovich-Glazers-aiming-stop-footballers-earning-mega-money.html#ixzz2BFWKGKiS

Probably one of the worst atricles I ever read.

Daily Mail ffs.

An "insider" said...

_blank_

Not going to happen

Turtyturd

An insider told me this won't happen because Premier League officials realise the best players in the league will leave for other countries if it does.

Captain Havoc

If it's in the Daily Mail, it must be true.

JPA

In the unlikely event of a salary cap coming in it will be set at current rates, nobody is taking a wage cut.

So the current mad wages aren't going away.

Cantona's Collars

JPA wrote: »

In the unlikely event of a salary cap coming in it will be set at current rates, nobody is taking a wage cut.

So the current mad wages aren't going away.

They want restraint on the way wages are rising,it's crazy that clubs like City are offering £300k a week to players.Even United are guilty of this with Rooney & RVP on around £200k a week.

Look what's happened in Malaga with a sugardaddy buying the club & players joining on massive wages,now the owners have lost interest & the club is in the shit.

CSF

zerks wrote: »

They want restraint on the way wages are rising,it's crazy that clubs like City are offering £300k a week to players.Even United are guilty of this with Rooney & RVP on around £200k a week.

Look what's happened in Malaga with a sugardaddy buying the club & players joining on massive wages,now the owners have lost interest & the club is in the shit.

So the owners want restraint on what they can pay players incase they lose interest?

So like the equivalent of setting a cap on what you can gamble on a website essentially?

eagle eye

It would great to have a salary cap. It would give clubs who have good youth setups a chance to be competitive under the right manager.

Its never going to happen though sadly and even if it did the cap would be set at a height that most clubs couldn't afford and only protect the big boys against more rich owners coming in.

Cantona's Collars

CSF wrote: »

So the owners want restraint on what they can pay players incase they lose interest?

So like the equivalent of setting a cap on what you can gamble on a website essentially?

Would you like to see your club go broke after it offers megabucks contracts to players who would piss off somewhere else as soon as things go tits up?

We've seen it happen at the likes of Portsmouth.

I'm all for wanting to see the best players at my club but there has to be a stage where someone has to say "enough is enough".

I know it smacks of greed from owners who give the impression of wanting a bigger slice of the cake,but if I was investing 100's of millions into a club,I'd like to see some kind of financial return.Ignore the romantic notion of owning a club,the bottom line is as usual - money.

General Relativity

I don't know how they're going to get around EU law. As far as I know it's illegal to restrict potential earnings for employees under EU law.

Bertser

This would only work if other leagues done it as well, I hope something like this comes in though, there's simply way too much being spent on wages in football.

RandolphEsq

JPA wrote: »

In the unlikely event of a salary cap coming in it will be set at current rates, nobody is taking a wage cut.

So the current mad wages aren't going away.

It would seem to me to be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

PhlegmyMoses

If the money is there, it should got to the players. Rather that than go to directors and owners in dividends.

A cap is a bad Idea. Spending no more than 50% of your turnover, relative to each team, makes more sense.

_blank_

zerks wrote: »

Would you like to see your club go broke after it offers megabucks contracts to players who would piss off somewhere else as soon as things go tits up?

He already did.

Richard Hillman

As if the likes of United, City and Chelsea will sign away their financial advantage. Although I hope it will be enforced on them, pushing them towards leaving the EPL and starting a European Super League.

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

As if the likes of United, City and Chelsea will sign away their financial advantage. Although I hope it will be enforced on them, pushing them towards leaving the EPL and starting a European Super League.

As with FFP a percentage of turnover system would suit United, Arsenal and a few others, it would crystalise their advantage if anything.

batistuta9

General Relativity wrote: »

I don't know how they're going to get around EU law. As far as I know it's illegal to restrict potential earnings for employees under EU law.

OT but the other week on the sunday supplement or some podcast they were talking about ashley cole supposedly not going to a new two year contract because of his age, similar to what arsenal done in the past

and they were saying that there were layers looking into it (can't remember if for cole or arsenal players) regards ageism laws

probably only a matter of time before someone tries it

Cantona's Collars

batistuta9 wrote: »

OT but the other week on the sunday supplement or some podcast they were talking about ashley cole supposedly not going to a new two year contract because of his age, similar to what arsenal done in the past

and they were saying that there were layers looking into it (can't remember if for cole or arsenal players) regards ageism laws

probably only a matter of time before someone tries it

United have been doing this for years,makes financial sense not to offer longer contracts to players who may spend most of the time on the bench.

Cole is a greedy fukcer & got the nickname Cashley for good reason.

The playing career is a short one averaging around 15 years and ageism would be a hollow case,it'd be akin to a company offering long term contracts to somebody in their 60's.

batistuta9

zerks wrote: »

United have been doing this for years,makes financial sense not to offer longer contracts to players who may spend most of the time on the bench.

Cole is a greedy fukcer & got the nickname Cashley for good reason.

The playing career is a short one averaging around 15 years and ageism would be a hollow case,it'd be akin to a company offering long term contracts to somebody in their 60's.

yeah it makes financial sense for the clubs but not the players :pac:

it's hard to say what way it'd go i think because they'd argue that their still physically fit enough to do the job + might have a good injury record, which they can prove, the length of the contract their looking for would also be part of it, etc. so i could see it as not being as open shut as you'd think

+ for simplicity, at 30 players around 2/3 into their career, now say someone in another field graduated at 22 & retirement age is 65 then it'd be like not offering them a new contract at 50 - if they could show their still capable of doing that job they'd win the ageism case

PhlegmyMoses

Clubs can get away with ageism the same way everyone else does; by not mentioning age at all.

We offer you a one year contract. Why? Because that's all we're willing to offer. Coolio.

batistuta9

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2250125/Premier-League-chairman-come-closer-implementing-financial-control-rules.html

Financial control rules to curb football's lavish spending move closer
By ANDY JAMES
PUBLISHED: 18:29 GMT, 18 December 2012 | UPDATED: 18:29 GMT, 18 December 2012

English Premier League clubs have moved a step closer to voting on financial controls designed to prevent a new influx of television money from being blown on increased player wages.
Leaders of the 20 clubs who met in London on Tuesday have asked the Premier League to work on two proposals to ensure that the world’s richest league remains financially stable.
The first would be modelled on UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) system and would require clubs to move towards breakeven, while the second would place an annual limit on the how much salaries could increase.
The support of 14 clubs would be needed for any proposal to be adopted.
The Premier League is set for a big increase in television revenues from next season when BSkyB and BT will pay a billion pounds ($1.6 billion) per season for domestic TV rights, in a new three-year deal worth 70 percent more than the current one.
Sales of overseas rights are expected to bring in up to two billion pounds over the next three years.
Wages use up around 70 percent of revenues at Premier League clubs, leaving very little profit for many of them.


Manchester City last week reported a net loss of almost 100 million pounds in 2011-12 despite winning the top-flight title for the first time in 44 years.
Clubs like City and Chelsea, who won the Champions League last May, have fabulously wealthy owners who have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on building successful teams.
UEFA’s FFP rules mean clubs have to curb their losses or risk exclusion from top European club competitions from 2014-15.
Details of sanctions for breaking any new Premier League curbs have yet to be worked out but current thinking is they should focus on measures like transfer embargoes, rather than points deductions.

another 90 sources since the mail won't be good enough for some :pac: http://www.google.com/news?ncl=dSdWdDzsw0IE_6M5v5_wQav2qVFtM&q=financial+controls+premier+league&lr=English&hl=en

Chucky the tree

General Relativity wrote: »

I don't know how they're going to get around EU law. As far as I know it's illegal to restrict potential earnings for employees under EU law.

It's worked in Rugby so it's definitely do able.

Bertser wrote: »

This would only work if other leagues done it as well, I hope something like this comes in though, there's simply way too much being spent on wages in football.

Only PSG, Real, Barca and some Russian clubs could compete with English clubs on wages. Those lads aren't going to sign every player available so not sure it would make a huge difference.

osarusan

I'd imagine that if there was some agreement on player wages, then we'd see the money offered for EPL rights change accordingly. Sky are not stupid.

death1234567

General Relativity wrote: »

I don't know how they're going to get around EU law. As far as I know it's illegal to restrict potential earnings for employees under EU law.

Very Easily. You can set a salary cap based on total turnover/total wages/revenue/total squad size/whatever. As long as you don't have a rule that states explicitly that a single player cannot be paid more than 200K a week then its not illegal, just have a rule like wage expenses cannot be higher that 80% of total turnover or something. As long as its not specific or restrictive to one employee its okay.

DoctorGonzo08

death1234567 wrote: »

Very Easily. You can set a salary cap based on total turnover/total wages/revenue/total squad size/whatever. As long as you don't have a rule that states explicitly that a single player cannot be paid more than 200K a week then its not illegal, just have a rule like wage expenses cannot be higher that 80% of total turnover or something. As long as its not specific or restrictive to one employee its okay.

That is the idea behind the slary cap which is used in the MLS and the AFL in Australia. It works, but there is always was around it. Take Beckham for example, he is on a wage that is in accordance with the salary cap, but also recieved the San Jose Earthquakes franchise, and gets huge percentage of advertising and merchandice sales.

zerks wrote: »

They want restraint on the way wages are rising,it's crazy that clubs like City are offering £300k a week to players. Even United are guilty of this with Rooney & RVP on around £200k a week.

Where have they being doing that? You do realise that is more than what Messi is on. Even United? They have the highest paid player in the league! And have had that honour for several years. Yet it's only called into question when it is a City or Chelsea player.

Fr Tod Umptious

death1234567 wrote: »

Very Easily. You can set a salary cap based on total turnover/total wages/revenue/total squad size/whatever. As long as you don't have a rule that states explicitly that a single player cannot be paid more than 200K a week then its not illegal, just have a rule like wage expenses cannot be higher that 80% of total turnover or something. As long as its not specific or restrictive to one employee its okay.

But that sort of cap does noting to address the imbalance in the game, it only enhances it

For example Man Utd have a turnover of 10 units per year then can then spend 8 units on wages

Reading on the other hand only have a turnover of 5 units per year and thus can only spend 4 units on wages.

If you want a even playing filed then the only answer is a NFL type hard salary cap where each year all team cannot spend over a give dollar amount on salary.

But it has to be combined with revenue sharing, i.e a portion of the money generated from the sale of a Rooney shirt in the Man Utd shop goes to Reading, and a portion of the Jay Tabb shirt sold in the Reading shop goes to Man Utd.

But that is not easy to implement in Europe as you have competition for players from various different and equal leagues, you don't have that in American Football

batistuta9

bump

PhlegmyMoses

batistuta9 wrote: »

bump

Why?

batistuta9

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Why?

Premier League agrees new financial regulations

i don't think there's another thread on it, is there?
so just keeping it here