Salary Cap voted in

[Bentley Bullet]

What will be the advantage of clubs having wealthy owners?

Bigger transfer fees, better youth set up, paying more for the best under 21 players available outside the salary cap, better stadium facilities, better equipment, better and more non playing staff such as physios, masseurs, dieticians etc, better quality pitch, better grounds staff, better facilities all round..

All the things outside the playing budget really..

How can relying on wealthy owners to provide Bigger transfer fees, better youth set up, paying more for the best under 21 players available outside the salary cap, better stadium facilities, better equipment, better and more non-playing staff such as physios, masseurs, dieticians etc, better quality pitch, better grounds staff, and better facilities all round be called self-sufficient?

[IDM]

I don’t know - that wasn’t the question.!! Certainly not the one you asked anyway.

[Alan Southstand]

Could be an opportunity for upgrading the u18’s to cat2 status, if we made more than the £2.5m cap.

[Chris Black come back]

It would be a brave case in the current environment to invest the required amount to move up to Cat 2 status, when output from our youth set up has been soon thin to date. Could be double or quits, but barely any financial return for that investment.

[Alan Southstand]

With a higher category, though, we’d attract better players.

[Bentley Bullet]

I don’t know - that wasn’t the question.!! Certainly not the one you asked anyway.

It wasn't the initial question, but it was the next question in response to your post.

[Ronnie Dovers]

If you have more money than the cap to spend, then spend it on staff wages, club infrastructure, youth teams, scouting, local community projects etc. Instead of paying average players and their agents far too much money... Just look at Arsenal cutting staff so they can 'invest in the playing squad'

[IDM]

I don’t know - that wasn’t the question.!! Certainly not the one you asked anyway.

It wasn't the initial question, but it was the next question in response to your post.

And I answered.  I said “I don’t know”..  I started my response with those very words..

[Bentley Bullet]

And that would have been fair enough if you'd have just said that, but you didn't.

[keith79]

If sunderland or hull have 25 player on over 2400 a week does  that mean they can not sign any new players because the waste cap?

[wilts rover]

I think this is the basis for the legal challenge isn't it. What if you have an exisiting squad of players under contract whose wage bill exceeds £2.5 mill and they wont renegotiate a drop in wages or be transferred?

I would guess the only way to avoid a sanction is to still keep paying those players what they are contrated to earn - you just can't have all of them in the squad. Somebody will have to be paid to stay at home.

[Metalmicky]

If sunderland or hull have 25 player on over 2400 a week does  that mean they can not sign any new players because the waste cap?

Freudian slip..... ?   

[keith79]

If sunderland or hull have 25 player on over 2400 a week does  that mean they can not sign any new players because the waste cap?

Freudian slip..... ?   

hahaha my bad

[silent majority]

I think this is the basis for the legal challenge isn't it. What if you have an exisiting squad of players under contract whose wage bill exceeds £2.5 mill and they wont renegotiate a drop in wages or be transferred?

I would guess the only way to avoid a sanction is to still keep paying those players what they are contrated to earn - you just can't have all of them in the squad. Somebody will have to be paid to stay at home.

No, that's not right. Any player who was previously contracted at a higher rate has his salary capped at the average for the squad. There is no need to renegotiate or reduce.

So, with a squad of 22 the average is;

£2.5m / 22 Players = £113,636 p.a. per Player

[IDM]

If sunderland or hull have 25 player on over 2400 a week does  that mean they can not sign any new players because the waste cap?

Freudian slip..... ?   

Maybe there are to be special salary limitations for players from Holland.? “Johnny foreigner“.?

[graingrover]

The development and further  investment in the U 18 fits the overall future strategy and fits. the new financial   realities in football . This said I believe that DM’s ability to attract talent by way of loans is fine  too.

[sha66y]

Don’t want to sound like a doomsayer, but if the U18s is not producing players that we can either use or sell, what exactly are we trying to achieve..... if we can get grade A young loanees from Premiership and Championship teams, why invest n something that “ might give a return”

This is not a dig, just trying to understand the logic of having a youth academy that isn’t generating any income from sales

[since-1969]

I think this is the basis for the legal challenge isn't it. What if you have an exisiting squad of players under contract whose wage bill exceeds £2.5 mill and they wont renegotiate a drop in wages or be transferred?

I would guess the only way to avoid a sanction is to still keep paying those players what they are contrated to earn - you just can't have all of them in the squad. Somebody will have to be paid to stay at home.

No, that's not right. Any player who was previously contracted at a higher rate has his salary capped at the average for the squad. There is no need to renegotiate or reduce.

So, with a squad of 22 the average is;

£2.5m / 22 Players = £113,636 p.a. per Player

That’s assuming you pay everyone at the same rate . I have always thought bonuses should be the bigger part of income with bonuses earned on results .

[ravenrover]

It's not a bad annual salary though is it

[DonnyOsmond]

Don’t want to sound like a doomsayer, but if the U18s is not producing players that we can either use or sell, what exactly are we trying to achieve..... if we can get grade A young loanees from Premiership and Championship teams, why invest n something that “ might give a return”

This is not a dig, just trying to understand the logic of having a youth academy that isn’t generating any income from sales

In a different thread a few week ago Selby was saying how the U16s from last year are the best generation in a long time. They'll be U18s this coming season. Let's see how them lads to out before we write the system off. We should be able to have a decent system anyway, we live in a 300,000 population borough and have other areas like Scummy we could pull from.

[silent majority]

I think this is the basis for the legal challenge isn't it. What if you have an exisiting squad of players under contract whose wage bill exceeds £2.5 mill and they wont renegotiate a drop in wages or be transferred?

I would guess the only way to avoid a sanction is to still keep paying those players what they are contrated to earn - you just can't have all of them in the squad. Somebody will have to be paid to stay at home.

No, that's not right. Any player who was previously contracted at a higher rate has his salary capped at the average for the squad. There is no need to renegotiate or reduce.

So, with a squad of 22 the average is;

£2.5m / 22 Players = £113,636 p.a. per Player

That’s assuming you pay everyone at the same rate . I have always thought bonuses should be the bigger part of income with bonuses earned on results .

Err, no it's not, that's how you work out what an average wage is under the salary cap system.

[wilts rover]

I think this is the basis for the legal challenge isn't it. What if you have an exisiting squad of players under contract whose wage bill exceeds £2.5 mill and they wont renegotiate a drop in wages or be transferred?

I would guess the only way to avoid a sanction is to still keep paying those players what they are contrated to earn - you just can't have all of them in the squad. Somebody will have to be paid to stay at home.

No, that's not right. Any player who was previously contracted at a higher rate has his salary capped at the average for the squad. There is no need to renegotiate or reduce.

So, with a squad of 22 the average is;

£2.5m / 22 Players = £113,636 p.a. per Player

That’s assuming you pay everyone at the same rate . I have always thought bonuses should be the bigger part of income with bonuses earned on results .

Err, no it's not, that's how you work out what an average wage is under the salary cap system.

As I said in my first post, I belive this is the basis of the PFA challenge:

How can an employer (any employer) alter the terms of my contract without my agreement?

As a former trade union rep 'There is no need to renegotiate or reduce' I am afraid is meaningless as you HAVE to negotiate with me. The contract is between club and player, not EFL and player or EFL & club.

[DearneValleyRover]

I think this is the basis for the legal challenge isn't it. What if you have an exisiting squad of players under contract whose wage bill exceeds £2.5 mill and they wont renegotiate a drop in wages or be transferred?

I would guess the only way to avoid a sanction is to still keep paying those players what they are contrated to earn - you just can't have all of them in the squad. Somebody will have to be paid to stay at home.

No, that's not right. Any player who was previously contracted at a higher rate has his salary capped at the average for the squad. There is no need to renegotiate or reduce.

So, with a squad of 22 the average is;

£2.5m / 22 Players = £113,636 p.a. per Player

That’s assuming you pay everyone at the same rate . I have always thought bonuses should be the bigger part of income with bonuses earned on results .

Err, no it's not, that's how you work out what an average wage is under the salary cap system.

As I said in my first post, I belive this is the basis of the PFA challenge:

How can an employer (any employer) alter the terms of my contract without my agreement?

As a former trade union rep 'There is no need to renegotiate or reduce' I am afraid is meaningless as you HAVE to negotiate with me. The contract is between club and player, not EFL and player or EFL & club.

Existing contracts aren’t being altered they will just be classed as the average salary for salary cap purposes

[wilts rover]

I think this is the basis for the legal challenge isn't it. What if you have an exisiting squad of players under contract whose wage bill exceeds £2.5 mill and they wont renegotiate a drop in wages or be transferred?

I would guess the only way to avoid a sanction is to still keep paying those players what they are contrated to earn - you just can't have all of them in the squad. Somebody will have to be paid to stay at home.

No, that's not right. Any player who was previously contracted at a higher rate has his salary capped at the average for the squad. There is no need to renegotiate or reduce.

So, with a squad of 22 the average is;

£2.5m / 22 Players = £113,636 p.a. per Player

That’s assuming you pay everyone at the same rate . I have always thought bonuses should be the bigger part of income with bonuses earned on results .

Err, no it's not, that's how you work out what an average wage is under the salary cap system.

As I said in my first post, I belive this is the basis of the PFA challenge:

How can an employer (any employer) alter the terms of my contract without my agreement?

As a former trade union rep 'There is no need to renegotiate or reduce' I am afraid is meaningless as you HAVE to negotiate with me. The contract is between club and player, not EFL and player or EFL & club.

Existing contracts aren’t being altered they will just be classed as the average salary for salary cap purposes

I don't know what it is like for a professional footballer but my wage is stated in my contract.

If there is a club whose current wage bill is over the salary cap then they are going to have to renegotiate with the players affected. Or pay the balance in brown envelopes.

[drfchound]

I think this is the basis for the legal challenge isn't it. What if you have an exisiting squad of players under contract whose wage bill exceeds £2.5 mill and they wont renegotiate a drop in wages or be transferred?

I would guess the only way to avoid a sanction is to still keep paying those players what they are contrated to earn - you just can't have all of them in the squad. Somebody will have to be paid to stay at home.

No, that's not right. Any player who was previously contracted at a higher rate has his salary capped at the average for the squad. There is no need to renegotiate or reduce.

So, with a squad of 22 the average is;

£2.5m / 22 Players = £113,636 p.a. per Player

That’s assuming you pay everyone at the same rate . I have always thought bonuses should be the bigger part of income with bonuses earned on results .

Err, no it's not, that's how you work out what an average wage is under the salary cap system.

As I said in my first post, I belive this is the basis of the PFA challenge:

How can an employer (any employer) alter the terms of my contract without my agreement?

As a former trade union rep 'There is no need to renegotiate or reduce' I am afraid is meaningless as you HAVE to negotiate with me. The contract is between club and player, not EFL and player or EFL & club.

Existing contracts aren’t being altered they will just be classed as the average salary for salary cap purposes

I don't know what it is like for a professional footballer but my wage is stated in my contract.

If there is a club whose current wage bill is over the salary cap then they are going to have to renegotiate with the players affected. Or pay the balance in brown envelopes.

Wilts, no they won’t.
It is straightforward.
No existing contracts will be affected.

[wilts rover]

Fair enough hound.

So if for intance a clubs current wage bill is twice the salary cap - it now magically becomes the salary cap wilst still being twice the salary cap. That makes sense.

[NickDRFC]

Fair enough hound.

So if for intance a clubs current wage bill is twice the salary cap - it now magically becomes the salary cap wilst still being twice the salary cap. That makes sense.

Wilts, you’ve written in this thread that the PFA can’t just go around altering contracts or even expecting existing contracts to be altered. If the salary cap is the agreed on approach, what else could they do other than what they have (had a provision to allow for existing contracts) to make it “make sense” in your view? Any renegotiations when contracts have expired will have to fit within the cap, but there has to be an allowance for any club that’s exceeding it without tearing up existing contracts.

[RoversAlias]

It has been agreed as a rule for the new Salary Cap that all existing contracts prior to the date of implementation (Friday 7th August) will count as the league average until such time as they are renegotiated or have ended. Quite simple really and the most sensible way of dealing with the transitional period for clubs.

[silent majority]

It has been agreed as a rule for the new Salary Cap that all existing contracts prior to the date of implementation (Friday 7th August) will count as the league average until such time as they are renegotiated or have ended. Quite simple really and the most sensible way of dealing with the transitional period for clubs.

Only those contracts that are above the squad average will be counted as the squad average. Those below of course will be counted at their correct level.