The Financial Landscape of English Football

[bitter-no-better]

The NFL has a model of the same wage spend cap for all teams?.

Dallas cowboys had the top revenue of 1.1billion last year. They last won the superbowl in 1996.

Besides the New england patriots not many NFL teams with huge revenues have been been in the superbowl the past 10 seasons.

In football, there are very few large transfer fees now a days across europe. Wages is the biggest threat to football.

 

[kenada_blue]

The NFL has a model of the same wage spend cap for all teams?.

Dallas cowboys had the top revenue of 1.1billion last year. They last won the superbowl in 1996.

Besides the New england patriots not many NFL teams with huge revenues have been been in the superbowl the past 10 seasons.

In football, there are very few large transfer fees now a days across europe. Wages is the biggest threat to football.

Not really the case. The summer windows still have record transfer fees especially in the EPL.

Clubs in world football survive on selling players. It's how they operate.

So to me, wages aren't the issue. A cap on wages just means a lock of over spending to revenue - on the surface it looks like there's action being taken.

But then clubs can just slap bonuses on players and pay them in other means. It's how City got themselves into a pickle with uefa and the league. There's ways round it

To me, if you give every club the same transfer budget that they can top up/pay for via things like player sales...clubs will think differently about signing players.

The crux of it all is clubs being allowed to spend. At the moment clubs can spend what they want as long as they reign it in/sell over a time period.

If everyone had the same set transfer budget, you'd only justify it by explaining how you fund it.

 

[nsno-chris]

Alright calm down Rafael

Oink oink oink

 

[Kever10]

But would an over all spending cap? Every team can spend £200/250/300m, regardless of turnover, on operating expenses.

Go over, there is a sanction. Owners have the choice to bridge the gap between revenue generation and spend if they chose. If club reports a loss for year 1, special measure are applied; year 2 and still reporting a loss, then sanctions are applied (squad reduction, transfer ban for signings) until losses equate, or at 70% of revenue

Allow a fair playing field for all. It gives the option for an owner to give it a real go and cover losses without worrying about a generating money from nowhere

They won't do it because part of the reason for the current corruption is brand image. They need to do everything imaginable to make sure that at least 3 of the big 6 (RS, Utd, Arsenal) are never in any danger of dropping away. Hurts the brand. Chelsea and City, i think they were begrudgingly allowed in to the club because of the sheer amount of money they have had, and Spurs are there because they just happen to be there. If it wasn't them, but they were replaced by Newcastle or Villa, they wouldn't care either way. If it was us, they would not be happy.

So the important thing is that those big 3 are looked after and front and centre. If they weren't, the rules would change overnight.

In an ideal world, if they wanted true parity and competitiveness (they don't), then all clubs would have a set budget and wage structure. If 1 team decided to forgo 5 players in a squad to give 1 player a massive wage, then so be it, but it's then their choice.

But regardless of how badly we have mismanaged our position, and we have, a league that penalises a team for overspending in a bid to bridge a gap, an overspend not based on a pre applied league limit, but instead based entirely on individual turnover, when the total 3 year rolling overspend is close to the annual wage of 1 player at another club, cannot be anything but corrupt. Its anti-competitive.

Which is exactly the way they want it.

P. S. I don't want to hear anything about how Brighton have managed it. Brighton are not Everton. Their expectations and reputation are not Everton's. Their approach to transfers is entirely different because it can be. If we had tried signing some of the great finds Brighton have, we would've paid more than Brighton did, because the selling clubs and agents would insist upon it. Brighton may find the same thing happening to them soon enough, if they continue to overperform.

 

[Toffe3m4n]

They won't do it because part of the reason for the current corruption is brand image. They need to do everything imaginable to make sure that at least 3 of the big 6 (RS, Utd, Arsenal) are never in any danger of dropping away. Hurts the brand. Chelsea and City, i think they were begrudgingly allowed in to the club because of the sheer amount of money they have had, and Spurs are there because they just happen to be there. If it wasn't them, but they were replaced by Newcastle or Villa, they wouldn't care either way. If it was us, they would not be happy.

So the important thing is that those big 3 are looked after and front and centre. If they weren't, the rules would change overnight.

In an ideal world, if they wanted true parity and competitiveness (they don't), then all clubs would have a set budget and wage structure. If 1 team decided to forgo 5 players in a squad to give 1 player a massive wage, then so be it, but it's then their choice.

But regardless of how badly we have mismanaged our position, and we have, a league that penalises a team for overspending in a bid to bridge a gap, an overspend not based on a pre applied league limit, but instead based entirely on individual turnover, when the total 3 year rolling overspend is close to the annual wage of 1 player at another club, cannot be anything but corrupt. Its anti-competitive.

Which is exactly the way they want it.

P. S. I don't want to hear anything about how Brighton have managed it. Brighton are not Everton. Their expectations and reputation are not Everton's. Their approach to transfers is entirely different because it can be. If we had tried signing some of the great finds Brighton have, we would've paid more than Brighton did, because the selling clubs and agents would insist upon it. Brighton may find the same thing happening to them soon enough, if they continue to overperform.

Brighton are club to keep a close eye on amongst all this. As are Brentford.

They are heralded for the way they are run since coming up into the league and, given their relative resources, rightly so - but when the wheels invariably start to fall off when they start getting ideas 'above their stations'.. what then?

We've already seen Brentford have a wobble this season, Toney or not. Brighton are a bit more stable, though aren't enjoying this season quite as much as they have done in the three previous..

 

[Terrarian]

Would the Spanish model work here? I'm not massively clued up on it but don't the league tell every team how much they can spend every season? Or does that also depend on revenue ergo still keeping the status quo?

 

[Dixieslaces]

*puts on serious cap

I don’t want this discussion into turn a PSR, elite club chat to overrun that thread. But what would people see as fair and just to regulate the competition.

With our situation, Forest and now Villa who are posting £120m losses, how can a team compete?

There is a lot of calls for salary caps, or do people just say open the books and let clubs do what they want, and spend however they see fit.

May even be wise to cap transfer fees, do Rugby do this?

Just a thought with a tiered system perhaps, depending on contract lengths, performance etc say place a cap across the board at a Max of £60 million and tier it down to a lower end of £10 million with a RPI increase year on year? (these are just my own musings and figures, people better placed and more knowledgeable will have greater insight into correct figures etc)

End Transfer Windows, the added pressure is ridiculous, hence January transfers being few and far between.

Close Transfer window 2 weeks before season starts.

If an owner is willing to fund 3 or 4 £60 mill transfers in one season, it cant and shouldnt be done using the Clubs as security.

The bubble has burst and we are seeing the effects, I think this is the beginning of the end and the new Champs League etc formats will eventually lead to a breakaway as we all expect so lets get ahead of the curve and try and deal with this current "fallout" on a wider basis to try and save clubs, as I personally fear a Big Club and by that I include any Club, not just the Scab 6 could topple and that domino effect will be devastating.

This is all very much "nice to have" and a bit "stable door and horse" but something needs to change and evolve massively for sustainability of such long standing institutions.

 

[MikeH72]

Oink oink oink

*squeal*

 

[Ed_Winchester]

They won't do it because part of the reason for the current corruption is brand image. They need to do everything imaginable to make sure that at least 3 of the big 6 (RS, Utd, Arsenal) are never in any danger of dropping away. Hurts the brand. Chelsea and City, i think they were begrudgingly allowed in to the club because of the sheer amount of money they have had, and Spurs are there because they just happen to be there. If it wasn't them, but they were replaced by Newcastle or Villa, they wouldn't care either way. If it was us, they would not be happy.

So the important thing is that those big 3 are looked after and front and centre. If they weren't, the rules would change overnight.

In an ideal world, if they wanted true parity and competitiveness (they don't), then all clubs would have a set budget and wage structure. If 1 team decided to forgo 5 players in a squad to give 1 player a massive wage, then so be it, but it's then their choice.

But regardless of how badly we have mismanaged our position, and we have, a league that penalises a team for overspending in a bid to bridge a gap, an overspend not based on a pre applied league limit, but instead based entirely on individual turnover, when the total 3 year rolling overspend is close to the annual wage of 1 player at another club, cannot be anything but corrupt. Its anti-competitive.

Which is exactly the way they want it.

P. S. I don't want to hear anything about how Brighton have managed it. Brighton are not Everton. Their expectations and reputation are not Everton's. Their approach to transfers is entirely different because it can be. If we had tried signing some of the great finds Brighton have, we would've paid more than Brighton did, because the selling clubs and agents would insist upon it. Brighton may find the same thing happening to them soon enough, if they continue to overperform.

I kind of agree with your comparison against Brighton, but I also think in our current position of being the Premier League’s turd that won’t flush, many selling clubs have taken advantage of our desperation to stay in the division.

We’ve seen it many times before over the years where an established club like Coventry, Sunderland, Villa, Newcastle started the downward slide, and their transfer policy goes to pieces.

I’m not advocating going down as the chance to push the reset button and Everton 2.0 emerge because you look at the clubs stuck in the perpetual yo-yo cycle between the Championship and Premier League - most of them are just not able to compete. It’s not just a case of surviving your first season back up, it’s a slog for 2 or 3 seasons to re-establish yourself. I would doubt our ability in our present state to bounce back immediately and then break free of the yo-yo clubs.

 

[Delargeinho]

Would the Spanish model work here? I'm not massively clued up on it but don't the league tell every team how much they can spend every season? Or does that also depend on revenue ergo still keeping the status quo?

It's based on the club's revenue, and is changed every year. Bilbao has 100 million around every year, but stable revenues. We made some lost during 2020 and 2021 due to covid, but now are in the profit zone again. The financial parity has made the playing field more leveled in the league.

However, the disadvantage now is we have fallen behind in terms of ability to compete for the best players and pay the kinds of transfer fees and wages that are needed to attract top talents, especially with Saudi Arabia in the race now.

But in total, most clubs have been in a better situation than in 2019/2020 financially. Not Barcelona, but it's their fault.

 

[formerly manx toffee]

Why can’t owners pump money in. Ever was it so.

Prevent mortgaging club assets, ground etc. but if Saudi want to pump money into Newcastle then let them. At least the six become 7 and when it becomes 15 we are back in a competitive environment.

All the present environment does is kill competition.

BTW the Man U model is horrible. Borrow the money to buy the club secured against the clubs assets. Wow

 

[Jacko93]

This will be the case whatever system that could be introduced because the 6 have had a head start on the rest in terms of making huge money. The salary cap would be something to prevent clubs going into meltdown off the field which puts clubs at serious risk of going under. It might even force clubs to go back to developing young players that come through the youth system into their 1st team rather than blowing tens of millions on players who are only interested in the pay.

If you only apply a salary cap on transferred players as well, that will encourage players who have been developed to stay with their club, leading to more investment in local players, or at least English players improving national team quality.

 

[Armaghtoffee]

Personally, for me I’d like to the introduction of a spending cap. Each club has the same amount of money to spend on players, transfers, wages, agent fees etc (say £300m)

If a clubs revenue does not equal the spend, then the owner, if they wish can pump money into the club to cover the difference. If the owner doesn’t, then they operate within their budget/revenue generation.

Profits on revenue vs income can go back into the club (u23, woman’s team etc). And any breach of up to £10m over would result in a transfer ban for 1 window

Whether your Luton or City, £300m is your limit

The only thing that will save English football is that sort of radical re-set button. As it stands now, it is an over-hyped Scottish league with pre-determined winners.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

It would encourage clubs to only spend what they generate in revenue. The current system encourages club to gamble on make huge losses short term in the hope of getting more competitive in the short term. In most cases teams can get that short term boost but then they are not able to generate the increased revenue to keep spending and end up like a Reading or Bolton, have a taste of the big time and face near financial disaster.

Some clubs earn a disproportionate amount of revenue though and smaller clubs would never be able to compete.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

Nah. We'd pick Sandro.

We’d pick Ronaldo Jnr over Sandro Jnr and Ronaldo Jnr would turn out to be Beckham Jnr Mark II and Sandro Jnr would turn out to be Haalland Jnr Mark II.