EFL Proposing Salary Caps

[Boletus Edulis]

I have a friend who has been a Bradford season ticket holder for several years. He really prefers rugby, but it has allowed him to take both of his boys as they entered their teenage years and are now young adults. I cannot speak more highly of your pricing, I wish more teams did the same.

 

[Greenacres]

I think the way that Bradford market their club, particularly what they charge for season tickets, has made it affordable for families in an area that is certainly not one of the wealthiest in the country. If you compare that to some, but not all, teams in the Premier League you need to take out a mortgage to get a season ticket...most grounds are less than family friendly, just look at pictures of the crowds for proof. Any spare tickets are snapped up by football tourists, look at the crowd at Old Trafford and you will see people taking selfies...just to post on social media, or share their footy experience with people back home.

My club comes in for a lot of stick from fans, some of it is justified...I won't defend the appalling facilities at our current ground for away fans, no cover for the majority at one of the most exposed grounds in the Football League...but our shirts for kids offer could easily be copied by others. We hand out free shirts to primary school kids in our area, as a result you are more likely to see one of our shirts being worn in the area, away from the ground, than just about any other...as I suspect you are a Bradford City shirt in their area. Even our manager commented that he looked out of his office window one day and saw the kids at the Primary School playing football in the playground, most of them were wearing Rovers shirts.

Most people will stick with a club once it is under their skin, through thick and thin, and probably the right age to catch them is before they are 10 years old...which is where the likes of FGR and Bradford seem to be getting it right...as Watford were applauded for doing way back in the 80's, by making football affordable for families.

 

[Chris FGR]

Ah yes, those good old days when you could buy tickets for football matches.

 

[Andy Proctor]

If you have a big ground like vale mk Don's bradford have instead of having thousands of empty seats I'd rather have them filled by either selling cheaper tickets or giving out lots of free tickets. Vale averaging 4800 in a 19k stadium hard create a good atmosphere in such an empty stadium.

 

[LS Bantam]

Pleasing that so many ‘get it’; for too long it’s been this stick with which to hit us with and I admit to being overly protective in defending it.
Short term losses are cancelled out in the long term, ie. earning less than we could in ST sales, are made up with better sponsorship opportunities and much higher footfall, buying shirts, pies etc. on a match day or in the shop.
More so, the seeds are sown for generations years to come, as well as converting floating older fans that otherwise would never bother.
I appreciate not everyone can afford to run such a scheme and I get the point that you want your club to take in as much cash from season tickets in order to pay for your season but talking from our own point of view, it has transformed our support for the better.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

Pleasing that so many ‘get it’; for too long it’s been this stick with which to hit us with and I admit to being overly protective in defending it.
Short term losses are cancelled out in the long term, ie. earning less than we could in ST sales, are made up with better sponsorship opportunities and much higher footfall, buying shirts, pies etc. on a match day or in the shop.
More so, the seeds are sown for generations years to come, as well as converting floating older fans that otherwise would never bother.
I appreciate not everyone can afford to run such a scheme and I get the point that you want your club to take in as much cash from season tickets in order to pay for your season but talking from our own point of view, it has transformed our support for the better.

LS, one of my sons deliberately winds up the other because he keeps biting. When the second son eventually realises that ignoring the wind up merchant is when he will be no longer be wound up.

 

[Conker]

I think his point is financially if you sell 10,000 at £150 your no financially better off in gates income than a club who sells 5000 at £300 (it is a great incentive so not slating it)

EXACTLY THIS, which is why any budget caps have to be on a income basis.

It works for Bradford, so it’s strange they come across so sensitive towards it.

LS Bantam So I was being neither sarcastic or dumb, you just misunderstood the post

 

[Chris FGR]

Lucky none of the pro wummers are about at the minute, would have a field day with LS Bantam.

The idea is everyone operates in the black, and has a salary cap tailored to ensure they do, eg If Bradford's income is less then Plymouth or Swindon, despite getting bigger crowds, then their salary cap should be set lower then those two. If those kids turn out to be regular paying customers in the future, then great. When they do and it goes on your books, then it counts towards the clubs salary cap. No more speculating to accumulate or basing current wages on potential future earnings.

Sponsorship should also only count towards the cap if it comes from outside sources, not one of the owners companies or whatever.

 

[Conker]

Lucky none of the pro wummers are about at the minute, would have a field day with LS Bantam.

The idea is everyone operates in the black, and has a salary cap tailored to ensure they do, eg If Bradford's income is less then Plymouth or Swindon, despite getting bigger crowds, then their salary cap should be set lower then those two. If those kids turn out to be regular paying customers in the future, then great. When they do and it goes on your books, then it counts towards the clubs salary cap. No more speculating to accumulate or basing current wages on potential future earnings.

Sponsorship should also only count towards the cap if it comes from outside sources, not one of the owners companies or whatever.

See that’s unfair for me, and it’s not gunna happen. I know owners use company sponsorship to overpay but I think saying to a football owner that helps sustains a club via his companies that he cannot use sponsorship is downright daft.

Maybe a solution would be a independent valuation on stadium rights etc etc.

 

[Chris FGR]

See that’s unfair for me, and it’s not gunna happen. I know owners use company sponsorship to overpay but I think saying to a football owner that helps sustains a club via his companies that he cannot use sponsorship is downright daft.

Maybe a solution would be a independent valuation on stadium rights etc etc.

I like the idea of an independent valuation actually.

The main thing that I want to see is a situation where every club is self sustainable. Artificially inflating a clubs income by the owner sticking a few million in via sponsorship isn't sustainable in the long term imo. Lower league football needs to get away from the relying on a rich owner to fund their club model. If that means clubs like us dropping a level so be it.

 

[Conker]

I like the idea of an independent valuation actually.

The main thing that I want to see is a situation where every club is self sustainable. Artificially inflating a clubs income by the owner sticking a few million in via sponsorship isn't sustainable in the long term imo. Lower league football needs to get away from the relying on a rich owner to fund their club model. If that means clubs like us dropping a level so be it.

I recall Manchester City being in trouble with UEFA due to how much Etihad or whatever paid for sponsorship rights.

 

[Indian Dan]

The biggest problem with owners injecting money into their club is the basis on which they do. If it’s in the form of non repayable ‘gift’ that’s fine to me.

The problem is the owners who ‘lend’ their club money and then charge hugely inflated interest on it - sucking money out of the club.

See Bury.

 

[Chris FGR]

Obviously owners gifting money or investing via buying extra shares is infinitely better then it being in the form of loans however even then it's not sustainable in the long term.

Clubs should only be allowed what they can afford, not what their current owner can afford. If every clubs budget was capped on the basis of the income they generate, with their accounts/budget being reassessed every year, then no clubs would be reliant on a single money man and none would run into trouble. It would also push wages down across the board.

 

[Kenneth E End]

I don’t necessarily agree that there is a need for a salary cap - I’d just say that a team must break even over 3 years apart from certain strict criteria (such as stadium improvements and academies) which don’t count towards the numbers.

Teams are allowed a bad year, but for every bad year they need at least one good year.

 

[LS Bantam]

Christ, the indignity of being called sensitive after yesterday’s affordable football chat, should’ve written it’s actually just tedious as f**k to read we give season tickets out for the millionth time and left it at that.
On topic, our losses have been massive (down to a former chairman), £350k plus in 17/18 and we’re on course to lose £4m+ since 2018 to now. The chairman’s loan account stands at £1.76m, we’re owed another million in the McBurnie to Sheff Utd deal but this will likely all go towards offsetting further losses. The £250k potentially due from Swindon and Tranmere for Doyle and Vaughan is anyone’s guess depending on how things are decided.

 

[Indian Dan]

£250,000? Tranmere must have paid a shitload for Vaughan cos we paid jack shit for Doyle. Do you really think we’d pay ‘big’ money, £5k a week and then give him a 6 month contract?

 

[LS Bantam]

The £250k is dependant on all clauses being met but is the figure reported at the time.

 

[Indian Dan]

Could be. But hearing now that the PL - and therefore the rest of us - are planning to play the 2020/21 season BCD.

We’ll all be fucked by then.

 

[Richard Cranium]

Enjoy being wound up guys. It's been a blast.

 

[valefan16]

Enjoy being wound up guys. It's been a blast.

If that becomes the case then the bottom tiers would surely have to mothball or at the very least be financially supported, let’s assume Vale for example have gate receipts of 1.5 million inc Season tickets and then the food etc on top we’d probably need £2 million to be able to complete the season next year without fans based on the contracts and wage budgets etc

Let’s say that’s slightly above average for league two as we are one of the better supported clubs so average £1.5 million is £36 million for L2 alone!

L1 likely needs a lot more as you have some big clubs down there.

Probably talking £100 million minimum to see L1 and 2 survive a season behind closed doors.

 

[Indian Dan]

Yeah, but you’ll have nobody to play against!

 

[Richard Cranium]

Cancel this season, Finish it on PPG, if you get relegated unlucky, promote those who finish in automatics and scrap a promotion place for plat off winnees and relegate one less from leagues above, Cancel next season and start again in Aug 2021 when it maybe safe to do so with fans in the grounds.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

Enjoy being wound up guys. It's been a blast.

Are you referring to LS Bantam, or all our teams? Or both?

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

An independent auditor for football finances has done very well in Germany and France.

Bans should be reintroduced for clubs selling stadiums and training grounds to fund a short term promotion push. I know that doesn't happen at this level, but it's ridiculous clubs are allowed to over-value stadiums then buy them back on the cheap. I think Gillingham did this over a decade ago before the current FFP breakers like Derby, Reading and Wednesday all did.

But a salary cap model is the only way to go. The Luton poster proposed the break-even rule where clubs are allowed to lose money in a year. The Championship tried something similar to that with the losses in single digit millions for the 3 year period. What happened? Clubs started bleeding money across the board and the majority of clubs increased the threshold for losing to money by about £25 million as none of them were compliant. I think the moment some clubs took the piss in a break even model they'd be demanding to change it to allow losses and that can't be a possibility at all.

Soft cap works with independent valuations to stop teams from flouting rules. I'm also in favour of a hard cap as well. But ultimately, I want the Championship sorting out from the debt ridden artificial spending mess it's in so our clubs can aspire to gain the richer sums from that division one day which could potentially improve our standing in the pyramid. Because, as it is, we'd all be incredibly lucky to do what Burton did at the moment.

 

[Kenneth E End]

The Luton poster proposed the break-even rule where clubs are allowed to lose money in a year.

I must correct this, because I didn’t actually say that. I said over a three year period you must break even, taking out exceptional costs for academies and stadium work. Meaning you can invest money one year but you must make up for it the next. And there should be no loophole where for example, a benefactor can sponsor a corner flag for £5m.

Currently Championship clubs can lose £39m over a three year period. Some will blame the Coronavirus pandemic but the likes of Reading lost more than that last season when there was no such problem.

In terms of gaining the vast sums of the Championship - good luck on that one... there isn’t a division more devoid of any reality in British sport. You get £7m a year in TV money, but some teams spend that on just their management team...

 

[Greenacres]

I remember when we were promoted to the League from the Conference that someone posted the difference in the money our club would receive from TV companies, three years ago it jumped from around £50k to over £700k.

This may back up the feeling held by many that there are clubs in the Conference who overspend in the, possibly misguided, belief that they will reap the rewards if they gain promotion. Although the sums will be vastly different in magnitude this may mirror the situation with the Championship and Premier League, where clubs overspend in the hope of reaching the promised land.

If a Division Two team was receiving around £700k in tv money three years ago I wonder how much those in the division higher would receive, I guess it is nowhere near the figure mentioned for the Championship.

 

[Kenneth E End]

You can’t compare it... the PL hands out £100m a season plus another £50m++ in parachute payments, so a newly relegated club has a huge advantage. And then in Sunderland’s case last season in L1 have a £30m+ headstart.

 

[Luke Imp]

See that’s unfair for me, and it’s not gunna happen. I know owners use company sponsorship to overpay but I think saying to a football owner that helps sustains a club via his companies that he cannot use sponsorship is downright daft.

Maybe a solution would be a independent valuation on stadium rights etc etc.

I'm pretty sure that loophole got closed some years ago and there's a system like that in place anyway, hence owners now selling stadiums and training grounds to different companies to raise the sort of funds the higher division clubs need i.e. Wednesday, Derby etc.

An independent auditor for football finances has done very well in Germany and France.

Bans should be reintroduced for clubs selling stadiums and training grounds to fund a short term promotion push. I know that doesn't happen at this level, but it's ridiculous clubs are allowed to over-value stadiums then buy them back on the cheap. I think Gillingham did this over a decade ago before the current FFP breakers like Derby, Reading and Wednesday all did.

But a salary cap model is the only way to go. The Luton poster proposed the break-even rule where clubs are allowed to lose money in a year. The Championship tried something similar to that with the losses in single digit millions for the 3 year period. What happened? Clubs started bleeding money across the board and the majority of clubs increased the threshold for losing to money by about £25 million as none of them were compliant. I think the moment some clubs took the piss in a break even model they'd be demanding to change it to allow losses and that can't be a possibility at all.

Soft cap works with independent valuations to stop teams from flouting rules. I'm also in favour of a hard cap as well. But ultimately, I want the Championship sorting out from the debt ridden artificial spending mess it's in so our clubs can aspire to gain the richer sums from that division one day which could potentially improve our standing in the pyramid. Because, as it is, we'd all be incredibly lucky to do what Burton did at the moment.

Agree r.e. the selling off or training grounds and stadiums. Linked in with the above comment to Conker, that came about when it became more difficult to throw silly money at sponsorship money from owners.

Any assets in place when an owner buys the club shouldn't be able to be sold like that. Any assets accumulated under their ownership is different providing the owner funded them.

I remember when we were promoted to the League from the Conference that someone posted the difference in the money our club would receive from TV companies, three years ago it jumped from around £50k to over £700k.

This may back up the feeling held by many that there are clubs in the Conference who overspend in the, possibly misguided, belief that they will reap the rewards if they gain promotion. Although the sums will be vastly different in magnitude this may mirror the situation with the Championship and Premier League, where clubs overspend in the hope of reaching the promised land.

If a Division Two team was receiving around £700k in tv money three years ago I wonder how much those in the division higher would receive, I guess it is nowhere near the figure mentioned for the Championship.

I can remember saying in the NL forum, possibly to a Dover fan last season or before, that despite the giddiness of the 'smaller' clubs about the increase in TV money, that's absorbed by other costs very quickly. Proper TV gantries and media rooms are two of many things that would need to be sorted, and that's before the various mandatory non-playing positions that need to be filled and paid for.

The increase in TV money from L2 to L1 isn't great, but the increase in costs is, which is why you only have to look at the top end of L1 to see what sort of money needs to be spent to get there (bar the odd anomaly).

You can’t compare it... the PL hands out £100m a season plus another £50m++ in parachute payments, so a newly relegated club has a huge advantage. And then in Sunderland’s case last season in L1 have a £30m+ headstart.

Going off at a tangent slightly, I was reading Steve Parish's statement yesterday and whilst he acknowledged that the PL's money distribution does include parachute payments, I wasn't surprised that he failed to mention only 3% or so finds its way to EFL Clubs and the bulk goes to recently relegated sides and offers huge advantages to them.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

You can’t compare it... the PL hands out £100m a season plus another £50m++ in parachute payments, so a newly relegated club has a huge advantage. And then in Sunderland’s case last season in L1 have a £30m+ headstart.

There is a downside though for relegated clubs. Expensive PL contracts are notoriously hard to shift. Very rarely are players who have no desire to play in the EFL sold without the relegated club paying a sizable portion of wages, even if they're sold to top flight teams on the Continent. Sunderland were indeed hamstrung by a litany of overpaid contracts with no relegation wage cuts which is why they ended up in League One.

Even Stoke who went down tried to gamble are now doing all they can to scrap FFP as they know a mass fire sale of players will only send them down to League One in the next few years. If the gamble backfires, the result is often a slow and painful descent into League 1.

Very rarely can a club use parachute payments wisely to improve themselves. The last team to do that were probably Burnley under Dyche in 15-16, because they hadn't overspent at PL level and had the funds to build a title winning team as a result. Most the time, it's dead money to honour bloated contracts.

 

[dedwardp]

Maybe parachute payments should be scrapped in exchange for some sort of regulation that insists on mandatory relegation clauses in contracts, freeing up those funds to be spread more fairly.