EFL Proposing Salary Caps

[Indian Dan]

Lets not talk about Jason Walker and penalties!!!



Sunderland is kind of a massive outlier dont you think? What about teams like Wycombe, ourselves etc. Even using the Sunderland example, going from spending 2.5 million to the financial madhouse would be a massive ask all the while knowing if you go back down you have to get out from under it all again. If there is some kind of grace period to get under the cap then those teams getting relegated have a big advantage over teams under or at the cap in the next season - creating a potential yo-yo club environment.

Unless the Championship have a similar kind of cap (not likely with the owners at that level), teams coming up from League 1 will go from a league where they can only spend 2.5m to a League where everyone is spending an order of magnitude greater than that. You'd have teams starting from a low salary base competing against teams with playing budgets of 30/40 million and more.

We should be looking at strengthening existing rules than putting an arbitrary salary cap in place.

But that’s how it is now, more or less. We’ve probably spent the L1 cap getting out of L2 - perceived as a big spender. In normal circumstances, I’d expect our L1 budget to be £3.5-4m. No idea if that’d make us competitive or not - I guess some of the smaller clubs in L1 do well with less (Wycombe).

As you say, the next leap forward is massive and there are already some yo yo clubs - Barnsley, Rovrum, Wigan, yourselves etc.

 

[That Fat Centre Half]

But that’s how it is now, more or less. We’ve probably spent the L1 cap getting out of L2 - perceived as a big spender. In normal circumstances, I’d expect our L1 budget to be £3.5-4m. No idea if that’d make us competitive or not - I guess some of the smaller clubs in L1 do well with less (Wycombe).

As you say, the next leap forward is massive and there are already some yo yo clubs - Barnsley, Rovrum, Wigan, yourselves etc.

To an extent it is but this will exaggerate that effect further.

If a club has a plan in place with business model to support there growth similar to what we had prior to this all kicking off or as the Plymouth fan has mentioned above about themselves, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to spend more than a cap in League 1. As long as it’s sustainable investment with underpinning business plan, there shouldn’t be a problem. In that situation even debt is not necessarily a bad thing.

To go from a capped league to what will probably be an uncapped one over the course of a summer places enormous financial stress on the club if they want to compete on the field at the new level.

We should be promoting responsible custodianship of clubs through existing rules being strengthened, not just slapping an arbitrary salary cap that could potentially impact the sporting aspect dramatically.

I’d also pump the breaks on us being in that yo yo club category as much as I’d like to include us!

 

[Indian Dan]

I suppose if the EFL actually monitored and implemented its own existing rules regarding spending to turnover we wouldn’t need caps!

 

[chipmunx]

I suppose if the EFL actually monitored and implemented its own existing rules regarding spending to turnover we wouldn’t need caps!

that sounds way too sensible and logical for a football body to do though - doesn't it?

 

[That Fat Centre Half]

I suppose if the EFL actually monitored and implemented its own existing rules regarding spending to turnover we wouldn’t need caps!

Fully 100% agreed and thats the point i was - badly - trying to make!

I also think its a bit of an excuse for an owner to put in some money and not really think of the long term health, or plan for the business as well. Just keep it ticking over, potentially even make a bit of profit of it from the odd transfer fee, with the convenient excuse of a cap to back you up as to why you aren't doing more to invest and build the club.

Ideally we want proactive owners who care for the long term health of there clubs, not ones who sit and leave clubs trading water.

 

[Luke Imp]

I suppose if the EFL actually monitored and implemented its own existing rules regarding spending to turnover we wouldn’t need caps!

That's the basis upon why a few Championship clubs are threatening to sue the EFL over the Derby, Wednesday and Birmingham issues because of failure to apply their own FFP rules.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

There's no perfect way of resolving this, but I'm largely in favour of maximum squad sizes. There are far too many dossers in L1 and L2 levels just happy to sit on the bench or play in the reserves and earn a decent wage. This would eliminate them.

As for the cap levels? Well the thing is, the current level of spending cannot continue. Compared to 10 years ago, it's shot up dramatically thanks to an increased TV deal and significantly increased PL solidarity payments. I would also say that the wages have risen faster than these deals have too, which is totally unsustainable.

Teams need to start investing in their own infrastructure rather than spunking it all on squad reinforcements. Some clubs are just shells. I find it embarrassing that, despite all the riches in the modern game, some clubs in L1 and L2 don't even have a proper training ground. I find it disappointing, though totally understandable, that certain clubs don't even have a youth system, and I acknowledge that EPPP may have played a part in some choices. If we're serious about benefiting our local community, we need to reject the PL solidarity payments, reject EPPP, not be held by the balls regarding B teams in the EFL Trophy and just do the best for our communities. Let's have more local lads in sides, let's cut wages so clubs don't risk administrations or liquidations. Because we need to realise, our clubs need to be profitable in order to function. And our clubs are regularly losing money. The Championship is a mess but one day, the banks will call in the loans and many will suffer up there. So let's ignore them for the moment and get our own houses in Leagues 1 and 2 in order.

When Rangers were sent to the Third Division in Scotland, and the TV deal was drastically cut for all clubs in Scotland as a result of this, Scottish club owners came to a consensus that they had to stop paying daft wages for over the hill foreign imports, and become community clubs designed to make a profit. So many clubs in England are too focused on signing over the hill journeymen on really daft pay packets that they fail to realise the whole point of being a football club is to be profitable and sustainable for your local community. Lean years will be had at times, but jeopardising your future and doing a Bury is exactly the reason why we need to kick reckless overspending out of the game.

My idea of a cap would be to adopt the German/French model and appoint an independent regulator and they will regulate sustainability, profits/losses, sponsorships and other income and set a "bespoke" cap for each club to spend. This would stop bankrolling and would value sponsorships on a fairer basis which wouldn't distort competition. After 5 years of implementation, clubs must have debts of £0. Those who flout the rules will be punished on a scale as to how excessive their debts are, ranging from small points deductions to automatic relegations like they do on the continent.

Football needs to be run like a business and not like the loss making gambling extravaganza it currently is. In the 90s, clubs were forced to sell players just for struggling to pay £50,000 bills. Now in the era of "buy now, pay later" and lax financial controls, many clubs in England take the royal piss. It's time to regulate and get clubs finances in order or B teams and club liquidations will be on the horizon.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

If there is a salary cap, would signing on fees and bonus’s count?

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

If there is a salary cap, would signing on fees and bonus’s count?

I'd imagine promotion bonuses could well be exempted but goal bonuses and appearance fees would definitely be limited else the system would be open to massive abuse.

 

[That Fat Centre Half]

There's no perfect way of resolving this, but I'm largely in favour of maximum squad sizes. There are far too many dossers in L1 and L2 levels just happy to sit on the bench or play in the reserves and earn a decent wage. This would eliminate them.

As for the cap levels? Well the thing is, the current level of spending cannot continue. Compared to 10 years ago, it's shot up dramatically thanks to an increased TV deal and significantly increased PL solidarity payments. I would also say that the wages have risen faster than these deals have too, which is totally unsustainable.

Teams need to start investing in their own infrastructure rather than spunking it all on squad reinforcements. Some clubs are just shells. I find it embarrassing that, despite all the riches in the modern game, some clubs in L1 and L2 don't even have a proper training ground. I find it disappointing, though totally understandable, that certain clubs don't even have a youth system, and I acknowledge that EPPP may have played a part in some choices. If we're serious about benefiting our local community, we need to reject the PL solidarity payments, reject EPPP, not be held by the balls regarding B teams in the EFL Trophy and just do the best for our communities. Let's have more local lads in sides, let's cut wages so clubs don't risk administrations or liquidations. Because we need to realise, our clubs need to be profitable in order to function. And our clubs are regularly losing money. The Championship is a mess but one day, the banks will call in the loans and many will suffer up there. So let's ignore them for the moment and get our own houses in Leagues 1 and 2 in order.

When Rangers were sent to the Third Division in Scotland, and the TV deal was drastically cut for all clubs in Scotland as a result of this, Scottish club owners came to a consensus that they had to stop paying daft wages for over the hill foreign imports, and become community clubs designed to make a profit. So many clubs in England are too focused on signing over the hill journeymen on really daft pay packets that they fail to realise the whole point of being a football club is to be profitable and sustainable for your local community. Lean years will be had at times, but jeopardising your future and doing a Bury is exactly the reason why we need to kick reckless overspending out of the game.

My idea of a cap would be to adopt the German/French model and appoint an independent regulator and they will regulate sustainability, profits/losses, sponsorships and other income and set a "bespoke" cap for each club to spend. This would stop bankrolling and would value sponsorships on a fairer basis which wouldn't distort competition. After 5 years of implementation, clubs must have debts of £0. Those who flout the rules will be punished on a scale as to how excessive their debts are, ranging from small points deductions to automatic relegations like they do on the continent.

Football needs to be run like a business and not like the loss making gambling extravaganza it currently is. In the 90s, clubs were forced to sell players just for struggling to pay £50,000 bills. Now in the era of "buy now, pay later" and lax financial controls, many clubs in England take the royal piss. It's time to regulate and get clubs finances in order or B teams and club liquidations will be on the horizon.

Agree with much of this but a couple of things.

Firstly there isnt really much point in clubs being targeted and punished for not making a "profit". The purpose of a football club isnt to make money for its shareholders, but to win football matches. What we dont want is salary caps with clubs targeted to make profits as that just means money from the pockets of players and fans to the owners which benefits them and not really anyone else. As a whole clubs should really be looking to break even really - whilst ostensibly Football clubs are businesses - really in many cases they are community assets and having them targeted to make profits i think attracts the kind of owner you arent really going to want (the Glazers, Mike Ashleys of this world).

Also the target of being debt free while a noble endevour is a bit of a recipe for stagnation to some extent. Debt in and of itself is not a bad thing if its combined with proper investment and part of a long term plan or strategy. A club, or a holding company for a club, for instance taking on debt to build a new training ground so they can improve there players and make them more valuable to sell, or extend there facilities so they can make money via new revenue streams, or as in our case build a new stadium, shouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Id take your regulator idea and like to see some kind of regulator put clubs through financial stress tests say every season i.e. do your plans and your numbers make sense and can you service your debts and liabilities with those plans. If not then we move on to a next phase where that regulator comes and brings those within safe limits for that club.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

Agree with much of this but a couple of things.

Firstly there isnt really much point in clubs being targeted and punished for not making a "profit". The purpose of a football club isnt to make money for its shareholders, but to win football matches. What we dont want is salary caps with clubs targeted to make profits as that just means money from the pockets of players and fans to the owners which benefits them and not really anyone else. As a whole clubs should really be looking to break even really - whilst ostensibly Football clubs are businesses - really in many cases they are community assets and having them targeted to make profits i think attracts the kind of owner you arent really going to want (the Glazers, Mike Ashleys of this world).

Also the target of being debt free while a noble endevour is a bit of a recipe for stagnation to some extent. Debt in and of itself is not a bad thing if its combined with proper investment and part of a long term plan or strategy. A club, or a holding company for a club, for instance taking on debt to build a new training ground so they can improve there players and make them more valuable to sell, or extend there facilities so they can make money via new revenue streams, or as in our case build a new stadium, shouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Id take your regulator idea and like to see some kind of regulator put clubs through financial stress tests say every season i.e. do your plans and your numbers make sense and can you service your debts and liabilities with those plans. If not then we move on to a next phase where that regulator comes and brings those within safe limits for that club.

I get what you're saying with debt, but the problem is the game is full of gamblers who amass debts building expensive squads before ripping them up and starting again. Some owners have used serviceable debt to finance improvements in the past, but as you're aware, the majority of debts in the Championship are nowhere near serviceable. Seeing clubs in the lower leagues amass debts of £25 million (Colchester/Bristol Rovers) is alarming given these clubs don't really spend much money when you think about it.

The model works fantastically in Germany though regarding being debt free. The infrastructure of clubs there, even at 2nd and 3rd liga levels, embarrasses an awful lot of sides of the equivalent levels in this country. I accept it won't happen overnight, but it can be done in the future. Though it probably will never happen. I also accept it could be too far a change for some, but we're on the opposite extreme of the spectrum. We encourage bad debt, we encourage reckless overspending because it makes the leagues look stronger. A strong league adds value to TV rights which encourage further overspending. Can Reading and Sheffield Wednesday really afford to run on over £40 million annual budgets despite no PL money? In England, many clubs foundations are built on sand, pretty much like Serie A was during its 90s and early 2000s heyday. And the bubble will burst fairly soon, even if the Championship and Premier League clubs are trying all they can to be resistant to change.

Regarding the profits, I still think clubs have a duty to have a manageable business model. Many just throw money at it and accumulate bad debt. Breaking even is absolutely fine in my eyes and my idea of profitable clubs would be to see profits reinvested into the club as opposed to being paid out in dividends to shareholders, an idea which I believe is also excellent. But obscene player wages are robbing clubs of building that infrastructure to make them a bigger draw.

Of course, we don't want Mike Ashley's in football. But we don't want idiots like Stewart Day at Bury and Andy Pilley at Fleetwood, where losses were heavy and unsustainable and ultimately saw Bury kicked out of the league too. We need owners that need to be committed to more than just building a 30 man squad with an average wage of £100,000 pa each. I think a cap in player wages would allow for clubs to spend more on infrastructure and enhance other potential revenue streams which could allow for clubs to progress up the ladder more naturally than just bankrolling and hoping for the best. Clubs need proper training grounds and good youth facilities. This is the 21st century after all. It shows a lack of professionalism if you go for the fur coat of a £4000 a week striker in L2 but you share a training ground with a local College. But maybe that's just me.

The independent regulator must come in. I'd also say they can be an impartial arbitrator for other issues too when clubs fall foul of EFL rules. The EFL is starting to dish out harsher punishments now Shaun Harvey has been removed from encouraging clubs to spend beyond their revenues, but an independent regulator can set the framework for all punishments to be clear and concise and befitting of the offence. I believe instead of the EFL "golden share", a licensing system would work fantastically. Fail to meet the criteria and it's a one way ticket to the National League.

The other 4 top European leagues are very strict on finances, we need to stop taking this laid back attitude and get our clubs in order. Bury should be the catalyst for change. But some clubs STILL want the unsustainable status quo to continue, and we can't let that happen else more will go under.

 

[That Fat Centre Half]

I get what you're saying with debt, but the problem is the game is full of gamblers who amass debts building expensive squads before ripping them up and starting again. Some owners have used serviceable debt to finance improvements in the past, but as you're aware, the majority of debts in the Championship are nowhere near serviceable. Seeing clubs in the lower leagues amass debts of £25 million (Colchester/Bristol Rovers) is alarming given these clubs don't really spend much money when you think about it.

The model works fantastically in Germany though regarding being debt free. The infrastructure of clubs there, even at 2nd and 3rd liga levels, embarrasses an awful lot of sides of the equivalent levels in this country. I accept it won't happen overnight, but it can be done in the future. Though it probably will never happen. I also accept it could be too far a change for some, but we're on the opposite extreme of the spectrum. We encourage bad debt, we encourage reckless overspending because it makes the leagues look stronger. A strong league adds value to TV rights which encourage further overspending. Can Reading and Sheffield Wednesday really afford to run on over £40 million annual budgets despite no PL money? In England, many clubs foundations are built on sand, pretty much like Serie A was during its 90s and early 2000s heyday. And the bubble will burst fairly soon, even if the Championship and Premier League clubs are trying all they can to be resistant to change.

Regarding the profits, I still think clubs have a duty to have a manageable business model. Many just throw money at it and accumulate bad debt. Breaking even is absolutely fine in my eyes and my idea of profitable clubs would be to see profits reinvested into the club as opposed to being paid out in dividends to shareholders, an idea which I believe is also excellent. But obscene player wages are robbing clubs of building that infrastructure to make them a bigger draw.

Of course, we don't want Mike Ashley's in football. But we don't want idiots like Stewart Day at Bury and Andy Pilley at Fleetwood, where losses were heavy and unsustainable and ultimately saw Bury kicked out of the league too. We need owners that need to be committed to more than just building a 30 man squad with an average wage of £100,000 pa each. I think a cap in player wages would allow for clubs to spend more on infrastructure and enhance other potential revenue streams which could allow for clubs to progress up the ladder more naturally than just bankrolling and hoping for the best. Clubs need proper training grounds and good youth facilities. This is the 21st century after all. It shows a lack of professionalism if you go for the fur coat of a £4000 a week striker in L2 but you share a training ground with a local College. But maybe that's just me.

The independent regulator must come in. I'd also say they can be an impartial arbitrator for other issues too when clubs fall foul of EFL rules. The EFL is starting to dish out harsher punishments now Shaun Harvey has been removed from encouraging clubs to spend beyond their revenues, but an independent regulator can set the framework for all punishments to be clear and concise and befitting of the offence. I believe instead of the EFL "golden share", a licensing system would work fantastically. Fail to meet the criteria and it's a one way ticket to the National League.

The other 4 top European leagues are very strict on finances, we need to stop taking this laid back attitude and get our clubs in order. Bury should be the catalyst for change. But some clubs STILL want the unsustainable status quo to continue, and we can't let that happen else more will go under.

I think Bundesliga clubs can have debt cant they as long as its under control - which is the way I think we should go. I don't think there model necessarily stopped "bankrolling" as RB Leipzig and Hoffenheim in recent years have shown but its done within safe limits. They also have a history of clubs literally being not allowed to make a profit and of course 50+1 so the context is very different but something we could look to emulate.

I get your point on the idea being that capping player wages would mean clubs focus on improving facilities and other revenue streams but again, the purpose of the football club is to win matches not necessarily make money. So what is the incentive of an owner to invest in those things if they cannot invest the resulting profits they make from it into the playing side to improve the squad and league standing because of a hard cap. thats ultimately the reason why clubs do these things isnt it? Thats what i mean when i say its kind of a recipe for stagnation for many clubs in my view. To be clear im not encouraging owners just chucking money around but if they have invested appropriately and have a long term plan for growth, I dont think its right to say you cannot spend that in this one area of your business - which just so happens to be its primary purpose!

Perhaps short term whilst the game recovers from the virus, a hard cap to get everyone back in check and operating healthy is the way to go, but longer term I just think a hard cap is really a reactionary way to go about managing all of the concerns that have been outlined and there are some pretty decent options out there - like the German model you have espoused - that meet the need whilst not constraining clubs overly.

 

[Kenneth E End]

I don’t understand how having 8 out of 20 professionals from the academy is going to be feasible? I’m all for promoting young talent, but in my eyes it should be a max 18 man squad with no upper limit on academy graduates.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

I think Bundesliga clubs can have debt cant they as long as its under control - which is the way I think we should go. I don't think there model necessarily stopped "bankrolling" as RB Leipzig and Hoffenheim in recent years have shown but its done within safe limits. They also have a history of clubs literally being not allowed to make a profit and of course 50+1 so the context is very different but something we could look to emulate.

I get your point on the idea being that capping player wages would mean clubs focus on improving facilities and other revenue streams but again, the purpose of the football club is to win matches not necessarily make money. So what is the incentive of an owner to invest in those things if they cannot invest the resulting profits they make from it into the playing side to improve the squad and league standing because of a hard cap. thats ultimately the reason why clubs do these things isnt it? Thats what i mean when i say its kind of a recipe for stagnation for many clubs in my view. To be clear im not encouraging owners just chucking money around but if they have invested appropriately and have a long term plan for growth, I dont think its right to say you cannot spend that in this one area of your business - which just so happens to be its primary purpose!

Perhaps short term whilst the game recovers from the virus, a hard cap to get everyone back in check and operating healthy is the way to go, but longer term I just think a hard cap is really a reactionary way to go about managing all of the concerns that have been outlined and there are some pretty decent options out there - like the German model you have espoused - that meet the need whilst not constraining clubs overly.

I suppose if you have detailed plans to a regulator and they were satisified with the model and that it wasn't a "pie in the sky" plan, it could well work. But some clubs may push it to the limit and that's where strict sanctions would need to come in.

My incentive for owners increasing revenue and improving facilities would be to increase the budget sustainably and attract a better calibre of player. I do believe there are incentives. We don't pay the best wages, but our training facilities were comfortably the best in League Two so we could attract certain players we'd have had no chance of attracting if we were training where we were in the early 90s on a field next to a local High School. So it can be a draw. Obviously most players are motivated by money (that's where the need to increase natural revenue streams comes in, for the long term benefits and ambitions of the club), but if a player has a choice of similar wage packets, facilities could well come into play. And every professional deserves the right to expect a decent standard of facility for them to practise their trade.

I'm sure there's a massive consensus between all fans that the unsustainable bankrolling and inflated player wages needs to be driven down, we all have different ways of solving it. But one thing is for certain, the game cannot continue in its current guise.

 

[Luke Imp]

I don’t understand how having 8 out of 20 professionals from the academy is going to be feasible? I’m all for promoting young talent, but in my eyes it should be a max 18 man squad with no upper limit on academy graduates.

Likewise, especially for NL clubs who come up with a very basic, if any, system because there's no funding.

I half assumed it was 20 seniors + 8 youths to pad the squad out if a club wanted because, as you say, 12 seniors and 8 youths isn't workable.

 

[chipmunx]

Likewise, especially for NL clubs who come up with a very basic, if any, system because there's no funding.

I half assumed it was 20 seniors + 8 youths to pad the squad out if a club wanted because, as you say, 12 seniors and 8 youths isn't workable.

I don't think it's 8 players who are in the academy - it's 8 who came through the academy;- a bit like (and apologies for using a PL club as an example) - when Man United has all the class of 92 in and around the 1st team a few years later.

 

[Luke Imp]

I don't think it's 8 players who are in the academy - it's 8 who came through the academy;- a bit like (and apologies for using a PL club as an example) - when Man United has all the class of 92 in and around the 1st team a few years later.

Yeah I didn't expect it to be 8x 16 year old, but it still raises an issue. Who has 8 players in the squad who've been in their academy? Crewe? Colchester? That's probably about it. And out of those, who can afford to carry 30%-40% of academy graduates in their squad? And that's before you consider the amount of players who don't make it through the system.

We had three in our squad this season (one ended up being loaned out).

Even if the rule was that they only had to have been part of the academy for a year, it's still a tall ask.

 

[chipmunx]

Yeah I didn't expect it to be 8x 16 year old, but it still raises an issue. Who has 8 players in the squad who've been in their academy? Crewe? Colchester? That's probably about it.

We had three in our squad this season (one ended up being loaned out).

Even if the rule was that they only had to have been part of the academy for a year, it's still a tall ask.

yeah - from the outside looking in Crewe was the only club i could think of.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

I don’t understand how having 8 out of 20 professionals from the academy is going to be feasible? I’m all for promoting young talent, but in my eyes it should be a max 18 man squad with no upper limit on academy graduates.

Hmm. Having passed rules that no longer make it economic to have an academy because the transfer fees do not make it worthwhile, from a standing start they now expect clubs to have eight players who have come through the academy? Unless teams are prepared to play fifteen and sixteen year olds this is not going to be possible in year one. I actually like the idea, like automatic points deductions for not paying wages, but this will take some time to be feasible.

 

[chipmunx]

Hmm. Having passed rules that no longer make it economic to have an academy because the transfer fees do not make it worthwhile, from a standing start they now expect clubs to have eight players who have come through the academy? Unless teams are prepared to play fifteen and sixteen year olds this is not going to be possible in year one. I actually like the idea, like automatic points deductions for not paying wages, but this will take some time to be feasible.

Macclesfield would be relegated by Christmas if they bring that in.

 

[Indian Dan]

If it’s right about the 20 mean/boy squad, how is that fair on Mansfield as going by their retained list they’re already over that limit. We’re doing our retained list/contracts tomorrow. Apparently, to those who agree new contracts they can’t actually sign them yet as we can’t pay them until things become clearer.

Major incentive to sign, that is!

 

[Conker]

If it’s right about the 20 mean/boy squad, how is that fair on Mansfield as going by their retained list they’re already over that limit. We’re doing our retained list/contracts tomorrow. Apparently, to those who agree new contracts they can’t actually sign them yet as we can’t pay them until things become clearer.

Major incentive to sign, that is!

For clarity, we have thirteen players currently under contract, which includes three academy players.

We are in negotiations with 7 players, of which 5 are academy, depending on the new rules will see how many of these we actually sign, but we definitely have room.

Good news is our squad is looking pretty young now with the releases of the older pros like Bishop, Macca etc.

 

[Richard Cranium]

I'd love for us to start relying on youth again or else it's pointless having an academy.

Also not convinced giving GC loads of money to try and spend our way to promotion is the way forward either, Evans walked out before he could be a success, Flitcroft ultimately failed and Coughlan has had 1 job before us where I don't think he's spent a great deal.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

A lot of people forget local lads made up squads for decades and were given a chance at all clubs before the PL solidarity money became a thing. Solidarity money just caused wage inflation and players pissing off after two years for signing on fees at other clubs. These experienced players also blocked the route for young lads in lower league Academies. EPPP (which should and I imagine could be scrapped but it'd take Rick Parry to really prove his worth to the EFL clubs to do so) has caused clubs not to even want Academies. And I'm not saying it's lesser clubs, clubs like Huddersfield who've developed good players over the years also didn't see the point in it either.

I think every club should be freed from the shackles of EPPP and be given grants to promote youth funding as opposed to solidarity payments which are spunked on agents and signing on fees to crap journeymen. In the long run, clubs could end up selling a player or two for seven figures! But I accept clubs would need current legislation to be scrapped and several years to transition to a state where they're capable of adopting a solid youth policy to do so.

 

[valefan16]

Yeah I didn't expect it to be 8x 16 year old, but it still raises an issue. Who has 8 players in the squad who've been in their academy? Crewe? Colchester? That's probably about it. And out of those, who can afford to carry 30%-40% of academy graduates in their squad? And that's before you consider the amount of players who don't make it through the system.

We had three in our squad this season (one ended up being loaned out).

Even if the rule was that they only had to have been part of the academy for a year, it's still a tall ask.

Most clubs have a few youths rattling around.

We had:

Nathan Smith
James Gibbons
Ryan Lloyd

Plus a few youths so weren’t far off, intrigued as to how the loan system fits into all this. That said clubs with very weak youth systems will struggle as you only have 12 non academy players. Surely a 24 man squad makes more sense. Do all clubs have a full academy going?

The academy rule is ok if the big clubs stop poaching the players... we sold four for big money in the past year none of whom had played for the first time and who I could even name.

The cap seems fairly low, ours was a modest budget this year but below that level! What does this mean for Salford?

 

[Chris FGR]

The 20 man squad with 8 academy lads is unworkable for a lot of clubs at this level. It's ok if you've already got a few senior pros that are homegrown, but if you don't you're going to end up with 12 senior pros and 8 kids. You can't play a 46 game season with that.

Anyone half decent from our youth set up down the years usually snapped up by bigger clubs before we could get them on contract, and a couple who did we lost to Leeds and Bristol City before they'd hardly played for the first team. The rest aren't up to it, as was shown in the Checkatrade last season when we fielded a few kids and got battered 6-0 at Walsall.

At the moment we probably only have 1 kid, Vaughn Covil, who might be ready to make the step up having been in and around the squad last season. Even with a years grace I can't see how we could field anything like a competitive squad under those rules. Can imagine that being the case at a lot of clubs, standards will drop and a lot of good older pros will be forced out of the game just because of some token quota system.

 

[Kenneth E End]

Just listened to an interview with David Artell - what a refreshing guy.

 

[Greenacres]

At the moment we probably only have 1 kid, Vaughn Covil, who might be ready to make the step up having been in and around the squad last season. Even with a years grace I can't see how we could field anything like a competitive squad under those rules. Can imagine that being the case at a lot of clubs, standards will drop and a lot of good older pros will be forced out of the game just because of some token quota system.

I think there are big hopes for Dan Ogunleye...but he is also still a kid and probably some way off being ready for the first team. Rather than restrict squad size maybe it would be better just to leave it to the clubs, if someone thinks they can pay 25-30 players then let them, but fiscal prudence would suggest most would be better off with slightly fewer players. I feel your comment about a drop in standards is pretty close to the mark, we may see that anyway, at least in the short term...unless of course teams at our level are able to sign a better quality of player, deemed surplus at a higher level, and maybe find ourselves in a position of power over both players and agents regarding signing on fees and wages.

 

[Chris FGR]

Yep, can't see any need for capping squad size. As long as clubs are staying within FFP or the budget cap rules (if it happens) then why does it matter how big their squad is?

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

People do realise that if the Championship was forced to cut costs dramatically, you'd see a drop in standard in this division anyway. Because the Championship wouldn't be exploiting the foreign market as much as its doing now. The perceived good standard you see now (and I'm sure there'd be no difference if you dropped the journeymen for the youths in time) is a byproduct of players not being able to get a game at second tier clubs.

What we've seen in the past decade are a lot of players being pushed down to League 1 and 2 levels because, even though they would've in the past, they simply can't get a game at second tier level when Bristol City and Reading are shelling out daft money on African and Eastern European wonderkids.

There's no way on this Earth L2 players should be commanding £3000-4000 a week to play. Absolutely no way.