fellatio_Martinez
Well-Known Member
I'd agree with that. I can't see any other outcome that makes sense.
I think the result is expunged and we lose the three points if they're kicked out, but don't take that as gospel.
I've thought about this before and it can be done without salary capping. My proposal would work better with squad caps, but it's not entirely necessary.
You take the fixed/guaranteed revenue from TV/sponsors etc and every member of the squad gets a 'basic wage' from the FPP percentage of that (if they want they can do a 1st team/reserve/youth like pay grades in 'normal' jobs).
This is then supplemented by a season end 'bonus' based on the variable revenues like matchday revenues and ticket sales. This can then be divided up based on minutes played. (If a player is injured there could be a problem, but which could be negated somewhat by saying any signed off by the physio/doctor as injured gets 2x basic wage or whatever, like sick pay).
This system has so many advantages:
It prevents a club spending beyond their means (money for the end of season bonus would be 'ringfenced')
It makes a league more competitive as most players will be on roughly the same basic wage, but it'd stop decent players being hoovered up by the big teams to sit on the bench as they'd earn much less than if they were a first choice elsewhere, so the talent is spread out more evenly.
The good players that play the most would still be the top earners so no problem of the top players not earning more than lesser squad members
No limit on salaries other than what income the club can generate.
Mutual incentive for players and fans.
-Fans can't complain if players don't join as they're partially directly responsible for the pay the club can offer. More fans turn up = more revenue = higher wages that can be paid = more attractive club to better players = improved team.
-Players play well and team wins = more fans want to come = more revenue = players get paid more.
Big teams can't complain because as they raise more revenue in sponsors/advertising/prize money etc they can still pay more than other clubs. If they lose that advantage it's down to their own mismanagement.
Is this on the assumption of continuing the status quo of the 20 clubs in the top flight getting a whacking great subsidy every year and the rest fuck all? Your proposal is pretty pointless if it is, tinkering with the edges
Only been to Bolton once - we won 5-1 I think with Dublin and Huckerby. Really liked the design of the stadium - it was one of the first of the 'new' bowl-style stadiums built.
Me too, I was there. Happy with a similar result but would prefer a clean shhet.
I guess you're talking about parachute payments etc.
Personally I'd remove them because as you say it gives an unfair advantage to those clubs that have just been relegated, but they're there because clubs will have signed players on big long contracts that are unsustainable without PL TV revenue and without it the club could go under unless they have a fire sale on relegation and it'd be like vultures picking over a carcass and players bought for big fees would have to be sold for peanuts just to get the wages off the books.
With this a player wouldn't have a wage of £x per week over the course of the contract, as much is variable and bonus related. Their basic wage would be written into the contract as being reduced with relegation or increased with promotion in correlation with the differing TV money. Relegation would still happen and for those clubs that got relegated the players would take a hit immediately (and rightly so as they're mainly responsible for it happening).
It'd probably lead to a lot more shorter term contracts if players feared getting relegated at a smaller club and being made to play for much lower money if it did (even though it's a fair thing to happen). But then those top players in relegated sides would get picked up by the bigger/non-relegated teams and the players they replaced in those teams would likely drop down due to not getting in the team anymore.
As I've said it does maintain some of the power for the big teams, but realistically it has to to some degree because otherwise they'll just throw another tantrum and threaten breakaway leagues etc. But it does dilute some of their power by reducing their ability to stockpile talent, whereas as it is now they're complaining they can't do their own TV deals which would just make the chasm even greater.
I guess you're talking about parachute payments etc.
Personally I'd remove them because as you say it gives an unfair advantage to those clubs that have just been relegated, but they're there because clubs will have signed players on big long contracts that are unsustainable without PL TV revenue and without it the club could go under unless they have a fire sale on relegation and it'd be like vultures picking over a carcass and players bought for big fees would have to be sold for peanuts just to get the wages off the books.
With this a player wouldn't have a wage of £x per week over the course of the contract, as much is variable and bonus related. Their basic wage would be written into the contract as being reduced with relegation or increased with promotion in correlation with the differing TV money. Relegation would still happen and for those clubs that got relegated the players would take a hit immediately (and rightly so as they're mainly responsible for it happening).
It'd probably lead to a lot more shorter term contracts if players feared getting relegated at a smaller club and being made to play for much lower money if it did (even though it's a fair thing to happen). But then those top players in relegated sides would get picked up by the bigger/non-relegated teams and the players they replaced in those teams would likely drop down due to not getting in the team anymore.
As I've said it does maintain some of the power for the big teams, but realistically it has to to some degree because otherwise they'll just throw another tantrum and threaten breakaway leagues etc. But it does dilute some of their power by reducing their ability to stockpile talent, whereas as it is now they're complaining they can't do their own TV deals which would just make the chasm even greater.
I quite like the idea in the MLS where you have a designated player. Also I am not sure if it's because of salary caps...not sure if they exist, but I think Tom Brady in the NFL could earn a lot more money elsewhere in salary but he decided to stay at the best team because being the best and winning brings in more in endorsements.
I think it's too far gone though, way to much money being made by people to change it now. Needed to be done earlier on.
Parachute payments are pointless, again they are a fig leaf for clubs being relegated. They still do not address the fundamental problem.
I agree with you that the Sky (and BT) money creating such a massive divide between PL and FLC is a massive problem, but how can you stop someone who wants to pay silly money for broadcasting rights? Are they supposed to turn it down? That's not going to go down well with clubs, turning down potential revenue.
So the most that can be done really is to even the playing field a bit by making is more difficult for clubs to hoard players and thus spread the talent out more across each league and thus make it more competitive. That puts more teams in with a likelihood of relegation and with the immediate drop in earnings without parachute payments affecting player wages the chances of them just bouncing back and it becoming an almost closed system for the big teams is reduced.
It becomes more about the ability of scouting, coaching, management and tactics than "just we've got shitloads of money and can buy the best, stuff the rest".
I'm not saying the idea is perfect, but it would be a much fairer thing than the current set-up.
I quite like the idea in the MLS where you have a designated player. Also I am not sure if it's because of salary caps...not sure if they exist, but I think Tom Brady in the NFL could earn a lot more money elsewhere in salary but he decided to stay at the best team because being the best and winning brings in more in endorsements.
I think it's too far gone though, way to much money being made by people to change it now. Needed to be done earlier on.
Not a word I expected to see on a footie forum :happy:I think the result is expunged and we lose the three points if they're kicked out, but don't take that as gospel.
They hoard players because they can afford to, which then reduces the leverage of any FL club trying to agree contracts with them. PL clubs can afford to pay players better wages for sitting in the reserves. The problems with football cannot be addressed without abolishing the Premier League and with it the TV deal imo,
Lawrence of the Lonely Season blog posted an interesting thing on Twitter earlier, about whether or not the TV deals and some of the contractual obligations within them are compliant with EU competition law. If the EU decided that they weren't, the arse would fall out of that market very quickly. Fingers crossed.
Not a word I expected to see on a footie forum :happy:
It's not though is it. It's a meritocracy. Better players earn more because they play in a higher league and get more game time.
It's both a fair system and one that protects clubs, which are community assets as well as businesses, from either fickle billionnaire owners using them as playthings or idiots splurging money that isn't there and putting the whole future of the club in jeopardy.
They hoard players because they can afford to, which then reduces the leverage of any FL club trying to agree contracts with them. PL clubs can afford to pay players better wages for sitting in the reserves. The problems with football cannot be addressed without abolishing the Premier League and with it the TV deal imo,
Lawrence of the Lonely Season blog posted an interesting thing on Twitter earlier, about whether or not the TV deals and some of the contractual obligations within them are compliant with EU competition law. If the EU decided that they weren't, the arse would fall out of that market very quickly. Fingers crossed.
I’m only playing.
Ourselves and Wycombe will have to share the 6 points with everyone else in the divisionIf we win and Bolton are liquidised next week then what happens to the points?
Why do you think if Bolton or Bury went bust every team would be awarded a win? I don't get the train of thought. If it happens there results would be expunged and it would be as if the season started with 23/22 teams.Ourselves and Wycombe will have to share the 6 points with everyone else in the division
We used to be like that with throw-ins when Gary McAllister was in charge.Their report from losing 2-0 at Wycombe shows where their expectations are at
Report: Wycombe Wanderers 2-0 Bolton Wanderers
'On this occasion, the result didn’t matter and the Wanderers fans celebrated at full-time as if they had won promotion.'
That's not what's he's said. He's suggested that the 6 points gained by Coventry and Wycombe would be divided by the remaining 22/23 teams. So 0.25 points each or something like that.Why do you think if Bolton or Bury went bust every team would be awarded a win? I don't get the train of thought. If it happens there results would be expunged and it would be as if the season started with 23/22 teams.
Fair enough. I've just seen plenty of people suggesting every team would be awarded two wins were a team to go.That's not what's he's said. He's suggested that the 6 points gained by Coventry and Wycombe would be divided by the remaining 22/23 teams. So 0.25 points each or something like that.
Fair enough. I've just seen plenty of people suggesting every team would be awarded two wins were a team to go.
Did they put NOPM after the suggestion?Fair enough. I've just seen plenty of people suggesting every team would be awarded two wins were a team to go.
I can see us getting 3 points whatever the result tomorrow.
If Bolton go under or can’t complete the season, then every team will be given the points automatically. So even if we lose or draw it won’t matter in the long run.
But it would be a real blow if someone scores a hat trick only to see it removed from the records!
We're all at home on Boxing Day then.Bolton won't go under, but Bury might.
Why do you think if Bolton or Bury went bust every team would be awarded a win? I don't get the train of thought. If it happens there results would be expunged and it would be as if the season started with 23/22 teams.
We're all at home on Boxing Day then.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?