The point I was trying to make is that Man City could buy the top 50 players in the world, stopping the likes of Man U , Chelsea or Arsenal buying them and therefore stopping them of having any chance of winning the title, and then loan them out to Championship sides with no intention of playing them.
Thing is, Golf, if they try to do that in the end the players won't sign. I'm not being rude but if you know that you are likely to end up in the Championship you wouldn't go there if Chelsea, Arsenal or Man Utd are also offering you a fantastic wage.
The difference between c. £80k a week and £200k a week is not all that much when you consider that the average bloke would be rich beyond his dreams with either wage.
[cite]Posted By: golfaddick[/cite]The point I was trying to make is that Man City could buy the top 50 players in the world, stopping the likes of Man U , Chelsea or Arsenal buying them and therefore stopping them of having any chance of winning the title, and then loan them out to Championship sides with no intention of playing them.
Yes they could. You mean a bit like all the other big clubs that buy as many players as they can & don't play them - Scott Parker ?
It's not what we all want - the big clubs dominating - but there it is.
But you can't say they can't stipulate who to sell or loan players to.
Don't tell me you'd be happy if Charlton couldn't decide who we sell or loan to.
NB Who should decide who clubs sell and loan players to then, if they can't decide themselves ?
The overriding problem is the fact that Sky has purchased the soul of the beautiful game and the inequitable distribution of funds between the 92 league clubs as a result.
Money follows money hence Manchester City being in a position to do what they are doing.
In a perverse way, given that City are paying the wages, one could almost argue that they are effectively redistributing wealth lower down the pyramid. However given the obnoxious nature of Cardiff City, Peter Ridsdale etc one is loath to make that argument in their case!
The truth of the matter is that no rules have been broken no matter how distasteful the scenario.
If it was one of the financially stable clubs in the Championship (not many of them, but there's a couple - Doncaster and Burnley are all right, I suppose), then I'd say fair play to them and wouldn't have a problem. But Cardiff were in such well-publicised trouble all last season, still tried to buy promotion, failed, somehow ended up smelling of roses, so I'm sickened that they now have a huge opportunity (by chance) to win promotion after holding out for so long on their debts. Legally fair enough, morally sickening.
As goes Man City, to an extent they are doing something that hasn't been done before, but Chelsea did buy up players just to stop their opposition. In terms of them buying the league title, well yeah, but so did Blackburn. Speaking of which, there's some Indian billionaire carrying out due diligence on Blackburn who wants to give Allardyce a £100m budget to buy European football at a minimum. I feel a bit sick, not just for us, but for clubs like Norwich who could fill their ground in League 1 - Blackburn average 25k
Man City are paying 65k of his wages. Motherwell are entitled to take them to court if they can't stump up £175,000 but can afford to pay Bellamy £25,000 a week in my opinion.
So should Orient complain that we had Lee Martin playing for us?
How much of his reported £12k pw (I doubt that is true but anyway) wages are we paying?
10%? 25%? 50%? At which point does it become fair or unfair on other teams that Ipswich buy players and loan them out?
Do we turn down loans from Prem clubs if offered? What if there is that great speedy 20 goal a season striker we want sitting in Arsenal reserves and they will pay all his wages while he's with us? Do we say "No, that's not fair on Rochdale"?
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]The overriding problem is the fact that Sky has purchased the soul of the beautiful game and the inequitable distribution of funds between the 92 league clubs as a result.
Money follows money hence Manchester City being in a position to do what they are doing.
In a perverse way, given that City are paying the wages, one could almost argue that they are effectively redistributing wealth lower down the pyramid. However given the obnoxious nature of Cardiff City, Peter Ridsdale etc one is loath to make that argument in their case!
The truth of the matter is that no rules have been broken no matter how distasteful the scenario.
Agree with Len. But nothing will change until supporters refuse to stump up. Gillingham supporter friend for example,is being asked to pay £29.00 for his ticket, so this season, he's not going to the games. The whole unedifying structure is crazy. I'm just amazed that Football - the business, hasn't already toppled over.
On the one hand as Henry has pointed out we have Lee Martin and are clearly only paying a small portion of his wages. It would be hypocritical to have a go at Cardiff for doing the same thing.
On the other hand I agree with HMRC that Cardiff are operating a sham of a business. They are building a squad which is not equal to their finances in the hope they gain promotion to the Premiership and their riches. I'd say let them do it as it will eventually catch up with them. I only hope when it does they are not allowed to avoid the dire consequences.
[quote][cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Shouldn't be allowed to spend a penny on transfers. Fees or wages until they clear debts. So yes it's wrong.[/quote]
We're in debt, should we not be getting players in on loan?
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Shouldn't be allowed to spend a penny on transfers. Fees or wages until they clear debts. So yes it's wrong.
We're in debt, should we not be getting players in on loan?
exactly.
in 2012 UEFA rules will make this more difficult but as bans from Europe will only hit the biggest teams and they will find a way around it I doubt it will stop but at least it is a way forward
Uefa has approved plans to force clubs in European competition to spend only what they earn, with the body's president Michel Platini insisting they want to "protect clubs and not punish them".
The financial fair play rules will require clubs to break even over a rolling three-year period if they want to play in the Champions League or Europa League. Clubs will also be assessed on a risk basis, taking into account "debts and salary levels", Uefa says.
Platini, speaking after Uefa's executive committee approved the rules at a meeting in Nyon, Switzerland, yesterday, said: "We have worked on the financial fair play concept hand-in-hand with the clubs, as our intention is not to punish them, but to protect them. We have an agreement with the clubs. The philosophy is that you cannot spend more money than you generate."
Some leeway will be granted for the six years after 2012 but some Premier League clubs, notably Manchester City, Chelsea and Aston Villa, could still fall foul of the rule unless they change their spending habits.
Manchester United have carried out a "dummy test" and believe they would pass the rules despite having to pay out £45m to service debts every year. Arsenal and Tottenham would pass the test comfortably, while Liverpool would probably do so too.
The new Uefa scheme will come into effect in 2012. It is understood that initially clubs must not return losses of more then €45m (£38m) for the 2012-15 period. After 2015, clubs are given a leeway of €30mn (£26m) for three-year losses after which the figure will be reduced still further. If clubs breach the rules then they will not be granted a Uefa club licence to take part in European competitions.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]The point is OUR debt is not to HMRC and other football clubs.
We hope : - )
I agree that Cardiff are extracting the urine and they should be paying Motherwell ASAP.
However this is just a more extreme example of what goes on all the time in football.
Liverpool bought Shelvey when in huge debt, Man U paid £7m for a third Division Portuguese player who was homeless a few years ago (not that that makes him a bad player or person) while having massive debt.
We can blame Man City but they do have the cash to flash and waste.
[cite]Posted By: ValleyGary[/cite]The Sun is claiming City & Cardiff are paying half his wages each.
I would be amazed if Cardiff are paying 45k of his wages. The fact Bellamy said in his press conference he'd like to thank City's chief exec Gary Cook for making the move possible suggests to me that City are paying the bulk of it. Surely no one at Cardiff would authorise a move (no matter how good a player he is) for him and paying him 45k a week.
While I never believe wage figures I see in the papers 45k a week equates to £2.25m
Would we be surprised to read that a Championship club had paid that for a player?
I'd guess our deals for Andy Gray and Varney cost us the same if not more. Much lower wages but wages over more than one season plus fees.
Yes, they only get him for one season but they don't have to worry about paying him again next year if it doesn't work out but if he takes them up then it looks like a bargain.
Comments
Agree with attachments attached.
The difference between c. £80k a week and £200k a week is not all that much when you consider that the average bloke would be rich beyond his dreams with either wage.
Yes they could. You mean a bit like all the other big clubs that buy as many players as they can & don't play them - Scott Parker ?
It's not what we all want - the big clubs dominating - but there it is.
But you can't say they can't stipulate who to sell or loan players to.
Don't tell me you'd be happy if Charlton couldn't decide who we sell or loan to.
NB Who should decide who clubs sell and loan players to then, if they can't decide themselves ?
Money follows money hence Manchester City being in a position to do what they are doing.
In a perverse way, given that City are paying the wages, one could almost argue that they are effectively redistributing wealth lower down the pyramid. However given the obnoxious nature of Cardiff City, Peter Ridsdale etc one is loath to make that argument in their case!
The truth of the matter is that no rules have been broken no matter how distasteful the scenario.
As goes Man City, to an extent they are doing something that hasn't been done before, but Chelsea did buy up players just to stop their opposition. In terms of them buying the league title, well yeah, but so did Blackburn. Speaking of which, there's some Indian billionaire carrying out due diligence on Blackburn who wants to give Allardyce a £100m budget to buy European football at a minimum. I feel a bit sick, not just for us, but for clubs like Norwich who could fill their ground in League 1 - Blackburn average 25k
How much of his reported £12k pw (I doubt that is true but anyway) wages are we paying?
10%? 25%? 50%? At which point does it become fair or unfair on other teams that Ipswich buy players and loan them out?
Do we turn down loans from Prem clubs if offered? What if there is that great speedy 20 goal a season striker we want sitting in Arsenal reserves and they will pay all his wages while he's with us? Do we say "No, that's not fair on Rochdale"?
Agree with Len. But nothing will change until supporters refuse to stump up. Gillingham supporter friend for example,is being asked to pay £29.00 for his ticket, so this season, he's not going to the games. The whole unedifying structure is crazy. I'm just amazed that Football - the business, hasn't already toppled over.
On the one hand as Henry has pointed out we have Lee Martin and are clearly only paying a small portion of his wages. It would be hypocritical to have a go at Cardiff for doing the same thing.
On the other hand I agree with HMRC that Cardiff are operating a sham of a business. They are building a squad which is not equal to their finances in the hope they gain promotion to the Premiership and their riches. I'd say let them do it as it will eventually catch up with them. I only hope when it does they are not allowed to avoid the dire consequences.
We're in debt, should we not be getting players in on loan?
exactly.
in 2012 UEFA rules will make this more difficult but as bans from Europe will only hit the biggest teams and they will find a way around it I doubt it will stop but at least it is a way forward
Uefa has approved plans to force clubs in European competition to spend only what they earn, with the body's president Michel Platini insisting they want to "protect clubs and not punish them".
The financial fair play rules will require clubs to break even over a rolling three-year period if they want to play in the Champions League or Europa League. Clubs will also be assessed on a risk basis, taking into account "debts and salary levels", Uefa says.
Platini, speaking after Uefa's executive committee approved the rules at a meeting in Nyon, Switzerland, yesterday, said: "We have worked on the financial fair play concept hand-in-hand with the clubs, as our intention is not to punish them, but to protect them. We have an agreement with the clubs. The philosophy is that you cannot spend more money than you generate."
Some leeway will be granted for the six years after 2012 but some Premier League clubs, notably Manchester City, Chelsea and Aston Villa, could still fall foul of the rule unless they change their spending habits.
Manchester United have carried out a "dummy test" and believe they would pass the rules despite having to pay out £45m to service debts every year. Arsenal and Tottenham would pass the test comfortably, while Liverpool would probably do so too.
The new Uefa scheme will come into effect in 2012. It is understood that initially clubs must not return losses of more then €45m (£38m) for the 2012-15 period. After 2015, clubs are given a leeway of €30mn (£26m) for three-year losses after which the figure will be reduced still further. If clubs breach the rules then they will not be granted a Uefa club licence to take part in European competitions.
How come Cardiff don't have to play to the same rules as everyone else then?
Like us, we're in debt, so I guess you don't want us signing any new players? Perhaps we should send a few of the newer ones back, to be 'fair'
We hope : - )
I agree that Cardiff are extracting the urine and they should be paying Motherwell ASAP.
However this is just a more extreme example of what goes on all the time in football.
Liverpool bought Shelvey when in huge debt, Man U paid £7m for a third Division Portuguese player who was homeless a few years ago (not that that makes him a bad player or person) while having massive debt.
We can blame Man City but they do have the cash to flash and waste.
I would be amazed if Cardiff are paying 45k of his wages. The fact Bellamy said in his press conference he'd like to thank City's chief exec Gary Cook for making the move possible suggests to me that City are paying the bulk of it. Surely no one at Cardiff would authorise a move (no matter how good a player he is) for him and paying him 45k a week.
Would we be surprised to read that a Championship club had paid that for a player?
I'd guess our deals for Andy Gray and Varney cost us the same if not more. Much lower wages but wages over more than one season plus fees.
Yes, they only get him for one season but they don't have to worry about paying him again next year if it doesn't work out but if he takes them up then it looks like a bargain.