UEFAs salary cap

[omnomnom]

Just read this and thought it was worthy of a thread.

"Uefa will set out proposals next month to replace its Financial Fair Play rules with a salary cap and luxury tax by next year.

Under the planned system, clubs in European competition would be limited to spending a fixed percentage of their revenue — possibly 70 per cent — on salaries. Any clubs breaching the cap would have to pay a luxury tax, under which the equivalent or more of any overspend would go into a pot to be redistributed."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-luxury-tax-for-teams-who-breach-it-5vrwf8cm7 Behind a pay wall.

Now whilst i like the idea of a salary cap...i dont like the idea that you can pay even more to bypass it and call it a tax. This just allows the likes of PSG and City to continue what they are doing. If the punishment was expulsion from the CL then id be all for it.

 

[fez]

That sounds like a completely pointless idea if you can just bypass it and pay a tax. City et al don't give a **** about money. This would literally give the carte blanche to buy whoever they want at whatever price. This does no one any good.

 

[hyperseven]

Redistributed to who?

 

[Kenai]

Redistributed to who?

This is kinda key.

Not much use if you tell City they can overspend £10million on wages due to redistribution if the £10million 'tax' gets redistributed to 50+ teams where it'll make not a blind bit of difference.

Besides, this will surely be even more easily bypassed by 'sponsorship' deals than ever before? Wages = £20,000 a week, but our friendly 'sponsorship company' just so happens to want to give you £100,000 a week.

 

[Pigeon_Killer]

This seems like nothing more than an admission by UEFA that they can't control what clubs spend so will try and profit from it rather than make everyone compete on a level playing field.

 

[Reuben klang]

Load of nonsense that. Purely to try and keep money in the hands of the owners who where pushing for the ****** super league.

 

[IronSpider]

No what it should be is a blanket cap on salary and spending. A set budget for all transfers and salaries. That's fair play. Fixed percentage of revenue just keeps the status quo. For example all Premiership clubs have a max of 300m per season for wages and transfers.

People want to continually bash chelsea and City out of jealousy. It's not their fault the wages are where they are. They are just at the end of a long line of clubs that have pushed the prices to where they are. Liverpool pushed the wages up in the 80's, Man U in the 90s. United pushed up the Transfer fees year on year and took who they wanted from other clubs. Now you want to moan it's 80m for a maguire?

City are where they are at because of the spending of those that went before them. It wasn't City paying Sanchez £350k per week, they backed out of the deal. Anyway they aren't in debt and can afford it, that should be a non issue. The issue was only about leaving clubs in debt, you know like Man U are now. Building a team on debt.

It's a bit rich pointing fingers at City looking at the fees United have *****ed up the wall the last 20 years or so.

 

[omnomnom]

Load of nonsense that. Purely to try and keep money in the hands of the owners who where pushing for the ****** super league.

Sorry, how is it?

 

[Reuben klang]

Sorry, how is it?

It’s been the yank owners who’ve been pushing for it like it is in US sport.

it’s seen as the franchises over there should make money for the owner. Salary caps massively help, guys like leborn would earn far more without the cap.

It would also help to stop big players moving to the new money clubs, as in one of the rules of the super league - can’t transfer players between the clubs.

This is purely to stop another club being bought and pumping money into them. It certainly makes it far harder for them to sign players. They’re meant to be taking the sponsorship deals that are inflated more seriously as well.

UEFA bowing down to them again, as always. To help keep the traditional bigger clubs the biggest. It’d be nearly impossible for another City or PSG to happen.

 

[Reuben klang]

No what it should be is a blanket cap on salary and spending. A set budget for all transfers and salaries. That's fair play. Fixed percentage of revenue just keeps the status quo. For example all Premiership clubs have a max of 300m per season for wages and transfers.

People want to continually bash chelsea and City out of jealousy. It's not their fault the wages are where they are. They are just at the end of a long line of clubs that have pushed the prices to where they are. Liverpool pushed the wages up in the 80's, Man U in the 90s. United pushed up the Transfer fees year on year and took who they wanted from other clubs. Now you want to moan it's 80m for a maguire?

City are where they are at because of the spending of those that went before them. It wasn't City paying Sanchez £350k per week, they backed out of the deal. Anyway they aren't in debt and can afford it, that should be a non issue. The issue was only about leaving clubs in debt, you know like Man U are now. Building a team on debt.

It's a bit rich pointing fingers at City looking at the fees United have *****ed up the wall the last 20 years or so.

this is a good idea but that would mean that the glazers would then be free to take even more money out of the club.

There isn’t really an easy fix for it. You can’t force business who float on the NYSE to impose a rule/law that means the owners can’t take out the excess of the 300m, nor can you force them to upgrade the facilities.
United revenue dropped last year but prior to that it was still in and around £500m

 

[McBain]

That sounds like a completely pointless idea if you can just bypass it and pay a tax. City et al don't give a **** about money. This would literally give the carte blanche to buy whoever they want at whatever price. This does no one any good.

Exactly, completely pointless.

 

[FrankJH]

No what it should be is a blanket cap on salary and spending. A set budget for all transfers and salaries. That's fair play. Fixed percentage of revenue just keeps the status quo. For example all Premiership clubs have a max of 300m per season for wages and transfers.

People want to continually bash chelsea and City out of jealousy. It's not their fault the wages are where they are. They are just at the end of a long line of clubs that have pushed the prices to where they are. Liverpool pushed the wages up in the 80's, Man U in the 90s. United pushed up the Transfer fees year on year and took who they wanted from other clubs. Now you want to moan it's 80m for a maguire?

City are where they are at because of the spending of those that went before them. It wasn't City paying Sanchez £350k per week, they backed out of the deal. Anyway they aren't in debt and can afford it, that should be a non issue. The issue was only about leaving clubs in debt, you know like Man U are now. Building a team on debt.

It's a bit rich pointing fingers at City looking at the fees United have *****ed up the wall the last 20 years or so.

You know of course that Utd's debt has nothing to do with transfer fees or wages , right? 100% of the debt is down to how the Glazers took over the club in the first place.

Utd have only ever spent well within their means as an organisation (unlike Leeds and a few others).

Its also just as much about the EPL's rising tv deals (until recently anyway) why transfer fees and wages have gone through the roof, which has been far more valuable than any other league.

City and Chelsea are equally responsible for the market excesses from years gone by as much as Utd (and to a lesser extent Arsenal prior to ~2010 or so)


In one sense you should actually be thankful (as rival fans) that Utd are in debt, imagine the behemoth if the debt hadnt been there for the last 16 years or so!!


This isnt a good idea, even if the tax equals the overspend (ie the club is actually paying double what their "overspend " is) it will get hidden /paid off some other way with no consideration.

There will always be some way around the ffp because the CL is only viable if the champions are in it (or those chasing the championship) and its going to be those exact clubs going over ffp for diminishing returns.

 

[adam cool dude]

Surely the easiest way to fix this is to only allow clubs to spend by the money the generate. Top clubs will still be able to attract big signings but will not be able to spend silly. Lower clubs will still get that chance to buy their top signing as well.

 

[IronSpider]

You know of course that Utd's debt has nothing to do with transfer fees or wages , right? 100% of the debt is down to how the Glazers took over the club in the first place.

Utd have only ever spent well within their means as an organisation (unlike Leeds and a few others)..

Explain how they grew the club and bought players prior to the glaziers.

Surely the easiest way to fix this is to only allow clubs to spend by the money the generate. Top clubs will still be able to attract big signings but will not be able to spend silly. Lower clubs will still get that chance to buy their top signing as well.

Agree but take debt into account. If you have any debt you cannot spend anything until you are back in the black! After all the whole point was to stop clubs running up Leeds amounts of debt.

Come off it your scenario just makes sure in nearly every league there would be no competition for the likes of a manu. Explain how a West Ham could ever become a top 2 club consistently even if Bill Gates bought the club. Far better to take a figure around the amount a Liverpool would spend each year and set that as a salary and transfer cap. Clubs more successful would make more money and become more valuable to shareholders and could re-invest money into the clubs.

 

[adam cool dude]

Explain how they grew the club and bought players prior to the glaziers.



Agree but take debt into account. If you have any debt you cannot spend anything until you are back in the black! After all the whole point was to stop clubs running up Leeds amounts of debt.

Come off it your scenario just makes sure in nearly every league there would be no competition for the likes of a manu. Explain how a West Ham could ever become a top 2 club consistently even if Bill Gates bought the club. Far better to take a figure around the amount a Liverpool would spend each year and set that as a salary and transfer cap. Clubs more successful would make more money and become more valuable to shareholders and could re-invest money into the clubs.

It would focus on bringing youth talent through to make it up to the top. Year on year you would get more money by being successful. Too many times do you see decent teams get picked apart once they come good. Rich owners could still invest the club facilities.

Take Westham as a point. They had a golden generation picked apart because of super rich clubs spending because they just had rich owners for the most part.

 

[Moley]

Barcelonas salaries take up 103% of their revenue and they are something like 1.3B euro's in debt. It's about time something was done to tackle this - it's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[IronSpider]

It would focus on bringing youth talent through to make it up to the top

I think you need to look again at how your team grew and how much money was spent to get the point the glaziers took over.

They had a golden generation picked apart because of super rich clubs spending because they just had rich owners for the most part.

How many teams did Manu help pick apart? If you only allowed clubs to spend what they generated in profit it would be even worse. Manu would pick apart every team. How would that be better?

 

[Derek W]

Redistributed to who?

 

[adam cool dude]

I think you need to look again at how your team grew and how much money was spent to get the point the glaziers took over.

There is no doubt we could buy players but that was as a direct result of the class of 92 which meant we could spend big on what we needed on individuals rather spending a lot spread out over several players.

Newcastle, Liverpool and Blackburn all outspent us in the 90's. That is a fact. Yes we had some British records but when Scholes, Neville 1, Neville 2, Beckham, Butt and Giggs were all free it leaves money open to spend on other players.

Fast forward to the modern day and you have Greenwood, Rashford, Mctominay, Dean Henderson and even Lingard. All cost nothing. You tot that all up and that is £150 million worth of players easily. Even more when Grealish is going for 100 million. How many of the top clubs have a history of using players from the academy? There is United and Ajax really. Barcelona do not even bother anymore with its academy. Maybe if they did they wouldn't be in such a mess.

Have a read of this.

https://www.football365.com/news/the-biggest-spender-in-every-pl-season-and-how-they-fared

As you can see in the premier league era we have only been the biggest net spenders 5 times. Mainly after our treble as we had a lot of money coming in then after our double double and treble in the 90's.

How many teams did Manu help pick apart? If you only allowed clubs to spend what they generated in profit it would be even worse. Manu would pick apart every team. How would that be better?

And that is a right United should have from the years of success that got them to that point but what it means is that a club that is ran correctly and well can eventually get to that position through effort. I personally do not think City deserve to be where they are simply because a country has splashed a nations GDP on winning stuff. Same with Chelsea and the same with PSG.

 

[Reuben klang]

In one sense you should actually be thankful (as rival fans) that Utd are in debt, imagine the behemoth if the debt hadnt been there for the last 16 years or so!!

Very much so, that’d be an extra £1.3bn to spend on the club. Although with the way Utd have been blowing through money in recent times maybe it wouldn’t be that much of an improvement.

Although going from Jones > Verane, Lingard/James > Sancho certainly helps and would certainly have seen an upgrade from McSauce and Fred.