(02-10-2024, 07:58 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(02-10-2024, 06:24 PM)Stillclem4england Wrote: I have said for a while that we shouldn’t be paying £20k a week plus to players at this level, we need academy graduates to supplement the first 15 and that no non-starters should be on over £10k a week.

However, £10k is a bit miserly. You’ll end up with a load of cloggers and no stardust if you are that inflexible with your wage structure. MLS has limits but some flexibility. If we set a budget there should be some flexibility within it for the right players.

---

(02-10-2024, 12:00 PM)Remi_Moses Wrote:

(02-10-2024, 11:41 AM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(02-10-2024, 10:14 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: That is akin to asking clubs to impose a salary cap on themselves… the gap between the Prem and Championship will be become impossible to bridge under those constraints. At best you will have six or so clubs yo-yoing due to parachute payments whilst the other clubs watch on in frustration. At some point there will be a legal challenge to the FFP rules as they are anti-competitive. I appreciate why they were created but at the same time they are going to create an unbridgeable divide between the leagues that will see a Prem 2 become more and more of a possibility. I dread to think where that would leave us if we weren’t part of it.

You are right that it will probably lead to a Prem 2, but I cannot see any reason why we wouldn’t be a part of it. 

Solving the effect of parachute payments is definitely a conundrum.  They are essential, but the knock-on consequences are an issue.  A reduced PL1 of 18 teams (which will assist re expanded European competitions) and a PL2 of 20 teams (not 24), plus extra funding for PL2 would all help, but the bigger, richer clubs in PL1 will still dominate, as will those PL2 clubs with parachute funding.  One suggestion has been to introduce more strings to be attached to what parachute funding must be used for,  and still impose a salary cap on them (albeit a higher one as they come down with a higher wage bill), but one of the strings could well be compulsory relegation wage cuts.  Only downside of that is that it will make harder in PL1 for lower-half clubs to sign players faced with such potential wage cuts, but they’d all be in the same boat, but it would certainly reduce the advantage of parachute payments to relegated clubs.

Let's play devils advocate here.
A team get relegated and they have a Vardy and a Winks who are earning £250k a week between them. That's the same as a squad of 25 on £10k/wk
Nobody can compete now, so how would they be able to then. Who comes up with these stupid ideas without thinking about the details.
Great idea in a fantasy world

No idea what Winks is on but Vardy is on a legacy wage from the Prem. Whilst I do agree with you, I would prefer BTA on say £10k a week to Vardy and I think his stats back that up.

It’s legacy wages which will change.  There will have to compulsory wage flexdowns in all contracts for relegation from the Premier league because it won’t be permissible to keep paying premier league wages in the Championship.  Either that or players will have to be given low relegation release clauses. 

Several clubs in the premier league don’t have relegation clauses. I think Leicester were one, Everton another.

(02-10-2024, 08:15 PM)Peachy Wrote: [quote="Pragmatist"
Either that or players will have to be given low relegation release clauses. 

(02-10-2024, 11:07 PM)Woodman scoreboard Wrote:

(02-10-2024, 07:58 PM)Pragmatist Wrote:

(02-10-2024, 06:24 PM)Stillclem4england Wrote: I have said for a while that we shouldn’t be paying £20k a week plus to players at this level, we need academy graduates to supplement the first 15 and that no non-starters should be on over £10k a week.

However, £10k is a bit miserly. You’ll end up with a load of cloggers and no stardust if you are that inflexible with your wage structure. MLS has limits but some flexibility. If we set a budget there should be some flexibility within it for the right players.

---

(02-10-2024, 12:00 PM)Remi_Moses Wrote:

(02-10-2024, 11:41 AM)Pragmatist Wrote: You are right that it will probably lead to a Prem 2, but I cannot see any reason why we wouldn’t be a part of it. 

Solving the effect of parachute payments is definitely a conundrum.  They are essential, but the knock-on consequences are an issue.  A reduced PL1 of 18 teams (which will assist re expanded European competitions) and a PL2 of 20 teams (not 24), plus extra funding for PL2 would all help, but the bigger, richer clubs in PL1 will still dominate, as will those PL2 clubs with parachute funding.  One suggestion has been to introduce more strings to be attached to what parachute funding must be used for,  and still impose a salary cap on them (albeit a higher one as they come down with a higher wage bill), but one of the strings could well be compulsory relegation wage cuts.  Only downside of that is that it will make harder in PL1 for lower-half clubs to sign players faced with such potential wage cuts, but they’d all be in the same boat, but it would certainly reduce the advantage of parachute payments to relegated clubs.

Let's play devils advocate here.
A team get relegated and they have a Vardy and a Winks who are earning £250k a week between them. That's the same as a squad of 25 on £10k/wk
Nobody can compete now, so how would they be able to then. Who comes up with these stupid ideas without thinking about the details.
Great idea in a fantasy world

No idea what Winks is on but Vardy is on a legacy wage from the Prem. Whilst I do agree with you, I would prefer BTA on say £10k a week to Vardy and I think his stats back that up.

It’s legacy wages which will change.  There will have to compulsory wage flexdowns in all contracts for relegation from the Premier league because it won’t be permissible to keep paying premier league wages in the Championship.  Either that or players will have to be given low relegation release clauses. 

Several clubs in the premier league don’t have relegation clauses. I think Leicester were one, Everton another.

Peanuts get monkeys

(02-11-2024, 12:46 PM)Stillclem4england Wrote: You can only do it if you have the wherewithal and nous within the club to buy the right players. I don’t imagine Cov, Sunderland or Ipswich have any on over that sum, but if you limit yourself to established players like Okay, Chalobah, Reach then it won’t work.

I would imagine our only starters on less than £15k a week are fellows, BTA, Palmer and Kipre. To me the big issue is that we are likely paying £20k a week to non starters like Reach, Chalobah, Ajayi, Diangana.