The flower stall is a red herring as the chap would just have to do something else if a competition was able to undercut him, irrespective of the reason.
The suggestion that all clubs have to follow with these salaries is also way off the mark. You only even need to consider matching Man City or Chelsea if you want to compete with em. And let's face it there are only really three or four clubs that actually hope to finish above them.
Also Man City are only able to register 25 players, so just buy one that they don't want, then when they ask for £200k a week you just laugh as no one else will offer it to them. In fact, you could just do what Spurs gave done and wait for City to get bored of the player and take him on loan for a fraction of the fee.
The suggestion that City's wages are unsustainable is silly, you are talking about c. £13m a year, the chap that owns the club is worth in excess of £14bn. The interest on that alone would be in excess of £700m a year, so you could afford 25 players on that level of earnings and still have only spent half of the interest and none of the £14bn capital. It's a bit like saying that it's unsustainable for me to spend a two pounds a day on my lunch.
Man City offered these type of contracts to payers like Adebeyor (who I agree is not in the top level of player in the world) as they needed to raise their profile by getting into the Champions League. They needed to offer him what he is on for that length of time to get him to sign, but they have already surpassed him so he is at another club. Ultimately they will 'release' him when his contract expires, or pay him off, and that will have been a 'cost' they were willing to pay to achieve their goal.
In the case of Chelsea, there were suggestions that Abramovich would leave them in a year or so and bust the club. He has been there, now, for six or seven years and he has written off much of the capital expenditure and he has a team looking to build a sustainable club. That is, perhaps, why they have not won the Premier League year on year, which they looked like doing while Mourhino was there. I suspect that he will leave the cub in a decent state when he leaves, and let's not remember that the reason other clubs get into trouble (Darlington being one) is because their owners spend money they don't have and can't afford.
It is more sustainable for a billionaire to spend hundreds of millions than it is for a chap with £20m to spend £25m.
As unpalatable as we find it when those sums of money are being banded about it is just wrong for us to question those that are doing it if it is their money and they have enough. It's, actually, those trying to match them when they can't afford to do so that are the problem. Just like those that have designer handbags and closes and massive credit card debts. It's not about what you spend, it's about what you can afford to spend, and clearly Chelsea and Man City can afford to spend it, so why shouldn't they?
that wage is obsene but not as obsene as the amount of money the person paying it has but that's another argument for another day. with all this i read that if harry can sign adebayor permanently, he'll be happy to flog defoe. it's all about reading between the lines
What IS totally out of order is the soon to be overhauled loan system .. Adebayor playing against Man City's title rivals while being kept active and subsidised by Spurs .. Swansea borrowing promising Chelsea youth players when the Swans manager is an ex Chelsea youth team coach, Wolves borrowing Frimpong in a bid to stave off relegation .. I'll say it AGAIN .. managers should have the courage of their convictions and get players they fancy on full contracts and pay a transfer fee if appropriate. Rich clubs are able to cherry pick both youth and experienced players, stockpile them, loan them out to other clubs and see how they perform while insisting that the loanees do not appear against their 'host' team. So, if Redknapp wants Adebayor he should sign him and pay him the wages he expects, otherwise stick with Defoe, Pavlechenko (spelling !) or whoever else he has on a FULL contract .. Adebayor should NOT be allowed to score goals for a team which is chasing Man City's great rivals, that is Man Utd unless he is a 'proper' Spurs player.
The flower stall is a red herring as the chap would just have to do something else if a competition was able to undercut him, irrespective of the reason.
The suggestion that all clubs have to follow with these salaries is also way off the mark. You only even need to consider matching Man City or Chelsea if you want to compete with em. And let's face it there are only really three or four clubs that actually hope to finish above them.
Also Man City are only able to register 25 players, so just buy one that they don't want, then when they ask for £200k a week you just laugh as no one else will offer it to them. In fact, you could just do what Spurs gave done and wait for City to get bored of the player and take him on loan for a fraction of the fee.
The suggestion that City's wages are unsustainable is silly, you are talking about c. £13m a year, the chap that owns the club is worth in excess of £14bn. The interest on that alone would be in excess of £700m a year, so you could afford 25 players on that level of earnings and still have only spent half of the interest and none of the £14bn capital. It's a bit like saying that it's unsustainable for me to spend a two pounds a day on my lunch.
Man City offered these type of contracts to payers like Adebeyor (who I agree is not in the top level of player in the world) as they needed to raise their profile by getting into the Champions League. They needed to offer him what he is on for that length of time to get him to sign, but they have already surpassed him so he is at another club. Ultimately they will 'release' him when his contract expires, or pay him off, and that will have been a 'cost' they were willing to pay to achieve their goal.
In the case of Chelsea, there were suggestions that Abramovich would leave them in a year or so and bust the club. He has been there, now, for six or seven years and he has written off much of the capital expenditure and he has a team looking to build a sustainable club. That is, perhaps, why they have not won the Premier League year on year, which they looked like doing while Mourhino was there. I suspect that he will leave the cub in a decent state when he leaves, and let's not remember that the reason other clubs get into trouble (Darlington being one) is because their owners spend money they don't have and can't afford.
It is more sustainable for a billionaire to spend hundreds of millions than it is for a chap with £20m to spend £25m.
As unpalatable as we find it when those sums of money are being banded about it is just wrong for us to question those that are doing it if it is their money and they have enough. It's, actually, those trying to match them when they can't afford to do so that are the problem. Just like those that have designer handbags and closes and massive credit card debts. It's not about what you spend, it's about what you can afford to spend, and clearly Chelsea and Man City can afford to spend it, so why shouldn't they?
Let's start with "The suggestion that all clubs have to follow with these salaries is also way off the mark," of course other clubs will have to follow the salaries that are being paid by City/Chelsea - that's the whole damned point - if they don't at least try to match up then they will lose their best players and the value of their own investments will sink like a stone.
Didn't you read about Rooney's lovely tantrum last year when he threatened to quit United? What was the result of that tantrum again? Oh, that's right, a £230,000 per week pay packet for Mr. Rooney - and Modric tried the same trick in the summer and will get his wish in the summer.
As for the "unsustainable" wages being paid by Man City, yes, you are right of course in saying that Abu Dhabi can - for the time being at least - afford to pay those wages but in inflating wages to the levels that they are doing they are creating an unsustainable wage level for the game as a whole.
Go talk to Daniel Levy at Spurs about this, he is TRYING HIS BALLS OFF to run a proper football business at WHL in which the club is run on a proper financial footing but his task is being made near impossible by Abrahmovich and the Man City owners.
Let's move on to, "As unpalatable as we find it when those sums of money are being banded about it is just wrong for us to question those that are doing it if it is their money and they have enough."
Er, its not wrong for us to question it at all. If they were spending the money on yachts, hookers, mansion or whatever then I would not give a damn because those things would be their own private playthings.
Our national game, however, is not and certainly should not be considered as something which can be used in this way, not when it puts the entire future existence of many clubs into serious question.
By pumping in the money they are and by being willing to absorb £200 million per year losses - meaning Man City will lose close to £1 BILLION over the next five years if their current spending continues (which it clearly will) - they are grossly distorting the playing field.
It is quite funny how those on the political right argue that the laissez-faire model should apply to sports as in all other areas of economic activity when in the Cathedral of Capitalism that is the US most of their major sports are salary-capped and tightly regulated on what owners can do.
For the record, I would describe myself in being quite conservative economically and generally skeptical about state intervention, but the fact is - as the Americans recognise - is that a sports competition can be destroyed completely if the playing field is tilted too far in favor of one or two teams and that a healthier market is only possible via some form of wage capping.
Here in Australia, both the Aussie Rules and Rugby League competitions have been vastly improved by the imposition of a salary cap although I of course recognise that such a move is much more difficult in football because of the international nature of the game.
But Man United didn't need to pay Rooney, and besides they can afford it. You make a big jump from Man United paying Rooney to an unsustainable wage level for the game as a whole.
It is the trickling down the leagues that is unnecessary for our game to survive. Certainly, I agree with you that these sums of money will distort the competition for a limited time, but it is limited as we have had many untouchable teams in the past and their time comes and goes and then they fall back.
The sums of money are irrelavent. In the 70s and 80s there were teams paying more to players, mainly because they had greater attendances etc. and they won things, then they fall back for one reason or another.
The truth is that if Man City had bought Rooney then they would have released another player and the other clubs would have to look elsewhere. Your remark about having to Man United having to keep Rooney is, I still maintain, like comparing a child that says it needs the latest trainers otherwise it can't keep up with it's friends. There comes a point where one has to say no, you must accept that they have more than you. It is ironic that you mention Man United as they have had huge finances for years and as such they have been massively successful. That is the way of the world. They, themselves, have forced up costs with some of their transfer dealings and wages they have paid - just as Blackburn did in the mid 90s.
I'm sure that Doncast are not in trouble because they were trying to compete with someone with more money than they had, and if they are then they, frankly, can have no complaints. Portsmouth are the best example of needing to learn to accept what they are and not try to compete out of their price range. They didn't need to do what they did, and they won an FA Cup with someone else's money.
It is not, under any circumstances, acceptable to get yourself into trouble and claim you had to as someone else had one.
I don't see how we can dictate what someone spends their money on, but blaming them for out failings is what got football, and this country into the mess it is in now.
Is it me or does his ''charidee work'' look rather like less than a week's pay? Maybe I'm missing something from his website, but it seems like sod all to me.
But Man United didn't need to pay Rooney, and besides they can afford it. You make a big jump from Man United paying Rooney to an unsustainable wage level for the game as a whole.
It is the trickling down the leagues that is unnecessary for our game to survive. Certainly, I agree with you that these sums of money will distort the competition for a limited time, but it is limited as we have had many untouchable teams in the past and their time comes and goes and then they fall back.
The sums of money are irrelavent. In the 70s and 80s there were teams paying more to players, mainly because they had greater attendances etc. and they won things, then they fall back for one reason or another.
The truth is that if Man City had bought Rooney then they would have released another player and the other clubs would have to look elsewhere. Your remark about having to Man United having to keep Rooney is, I still maintain, like comparing a child that says it needs the latest trainers otherwise it can't keep up with it's friends. There comes a point where one has to say no, you must accept that they have more than you. It is ironic that you mention Man United as they have had huge finances for years and as such they have been massively successful. That is the way of the world. They, themselves, have forced up costs with some of their transfer dealings and wages they have paid - just as Blackburn did in the mid 90s.
I'm sure that Doncast are not in trouble because they were trying to compete with someone with more money than they had, and if they are then they, frankly, can have no complaints. Portsmouth are the best example of needing to learn to accept what they are and not try to compete out of their price range. They didn't need to do what they did, and they won an FA Cup with someone else's money.
It is not, under any circumstances, acceptable to get yourself into trouble and claim you had to as someone else had one.
I don't see how we can dictate what someone spends their money on, but blaming them for out failings is what got football, and this country into the mess it is in now.
Come on KHA, you are being entirely unrealistic about how modern day football works if you think that Manchester United could simply let Rooney walk down the street to Eastlands.
If they had done that then the consequences for them as a club would have been catastrophic because it would have sent out the signal that they could not - and more importantly would not - compete in the wages market for top players.
Once that happens then its just a short stop to the delights of the Europa League because it would only be a matter of time before their other top players like Vidic and Nani pull the same stunt and are off down the road too.
This is why the top clubs who are trying to keep pace with the Chelsea/Man City 'strategic loss' strategy absolutely cannot just sit by and let their players leave, if they do so then they will in turn jeopardise the entire status of the club because once words gets out that you can't keep your top players then you are dead in the water as a Champions League side - just look at Arsenal who are now barrelling down the league and losing to Swansea.
You mention Manchester United's own inflation of the transfer market in the 90's but there is a huge difference between what Man United did - which was to generate a global revenue base and still achieve operating profits or only marginal losses (pre-Glazers) - and what Man City/Chelsea are doing by "accepting" 200 million pounds in annual losses.
I simply cannot understand your comment that the "sums of money are irrelevant" either, the losses that were being suffered by some clubs in the 70's/80's are in absolutely no way comparable to the sums being lost by PL clubs at the moment, the figures involved are shocking.
Even back in their glory years in the 1980's Liverpool - although a very wealthy club by standards of the day - were always just about at break-even point and were actually vulnerable to foreign clubs buying their top talent, they would never have dreamed of running the losses that current clubs are doing.
I can agree to some degree with your final comment, "I don't see how we can dictate what someone spends their money on, but blaming them for out failings is what got football, and this country into the mess it is in now."
It is true that we can't - under the current regulations - dictate what people spend their money on but it is certainly not this that has gotten us to this point in either football or the wider economy.
Everyone - even people like Karen Brady - have accepted that the levels of player wages are crucifying the finances of the current game, it is plain crazy and totally unsustainable for clubs like Bolton and plenty more to be spending 90%+ of their revenues on wages as they currently are - what sort of business can hope to survive doing that?
What is inflating player wages? Well, it WAS the level of money paid by TV companies but this has flattened out over the last couple of years and will continue to do so. I am in regular contact with several APAC pay TV CEO's who tell me that their days of paying top dollar for the EPL are well and truly over.
No, the big current inflator of players wages at the top end of the wages market - which is clearly where the rises are sharpest - are being caused by the "strategic loss" strategy of Abrahmovich and the Abu Dhabi lot which is forcing - rightly or wrongly - their rivals at the top end of the market to try and match them as best they can and therefore produce yet more red ink.
Look at the Adebayor situation, he has been brilliant for Spurs and if they qualify for the CL next season Levy and Redknapp are going to come under massive pressure from the fans to sign him permanently so that they can cement a place in the top four and become a permanent CL competitor.
Adbebayor is going to love that, Levy will try and hold his 70k per week wage ceiling in place but if he does not agree to break the limit to accomodate Adebayor then he is going to cop huge criticism from the Spurs fans - as well as Redknapp in private - because he will be seen to be "not showing ambition."
This is the key here, football is not a rational business, fans are not interested in financial returns they want to see footballing success and achieving that costs a lot of money indeed when you are competing with people who are able and prepared to cop losses of 200 million pounds per year.
It is true that there are no easy answers here but I think that the Financial Fair Play regulations on the board from Platini are at least a step in the right direction and towards restoring some sanity back to the game.
let the big boys implode and hopefully we'll be in a position to push on up rather than sloshing about skint in the lower leagues cos we were badly run and overspent stupidly
OA, I totally agree with you that United 'couldn't' sell Rooney to City, but that doesn't make it the right financial decision. And it comes back to my point that they didn't actually have to pay him all that money. They had a choice. As for the signal that they can't compete and they must accept Europa League football, well if they are no longer the richest team in the league then that is, exactly, what they will need to do. I have no sympathy for the clubs that have, for whatever reason, had more money than their competition for years. Man United didn't refuse to pay Bryan Robson more than he could earn at WBA so that the league was fairer. If their time at the top is at an end then I really couldn't care less. All clubs (and businesses for that matter) look to establish a position where they have a competitive advantage. United did that with out spending the rest, if the tables have turned then so be it. In the end they will run out of money and credit and they will have to 'release' their top players. In actual fact, I am pleased that Chelsea and Man City (even though I don't, particularly, like either of them) have had investment that has knocked the usual suspects off the top of the pile. The league was becoming very uncompetitive with the same top four each season, and the title was almost as predictable.
My comment about the sums of money being irrelevant was not aimed at the fact that there will always be clubs with more resources than others. If you don't have the money of another club (irrespective as to where it comes from) then you have to accept it. You can't just go and spend money you don't have because someone else has it. City are making paper losses but they are able to fund them. The fact that there have always been teams with bigger budgets is the point I was looking to make. In the land of the blind the one eye'd man is king. In the 70s and 80s Liverpool had more money (from income not rich benefactors) and they were able to offer more wages.
It's interesting that those that shout the loudest about how high and unrealistic the wages are (and I'm not talking about fans like us) are those that have sanctioned the paying of them. Karen Bradey is a classic example. West Ham are in a terrible mess, but it is in their hands. They could have made the decision to live within their means but they didn't. Complaining about it now looks like sour grapes - like a teenager with a huge credit card bill and a pair of £300 boots and a £1,000 handbag. Karen Bradey was at West Ham when Scott Parker was offered a four year deal worth c.£14.5m let's remember. She is only complaining now because their money has run out.
As soon as ALL clubs start paying what they can afford the wages across all divisions will fall as the players will have to accept a more realistic pay structure. It could be argued that City are only being forced to pay those wages because other teams (that are running up debts) are paying them. Sure there is (or was) a premium for players to accept they were signing for a club not in the Champions League, but that will have gone to some extent now. As soon as teams like Fulham and Bolton reduce what they pay teams like Villa and Arsenal will reduce their wages. Ultimately City and Chelsea, and Man Utd, will no longer have to offer quite as much. West Ham paying Scott Parker £70k a week is, in my view, much more insane than City offering Adebayor £225k a week. Rich business men have always been able to buy a club and distort the league, Jack Walker did it with Blackburn and won the Premier League with £60m. The difference is that now the sums are higher.
Financial fair play will, probably, do what I am advocating for. Man City will just get round it by the owner (or one of his companies) putting in sponsorship or by 'buying' exclusive tickets for huge sums of money. What it will do is restrict gearing, which will prevent Man Utd from paying the next tantrum thrower a small fortune. It will not stop City's billionaire owners from spending their own money. It might, of course, reduce the demands of the players. If the option is, for example, to sign for Man Utd for £30k a week or Man City for £60k a week it will make £225k a week a thing of the past, but either way the football authorities will not be able to control wages. If there was a salary cap then an Abu Dhabi company will just 'choose' to employ players as models or some such thing that will boost their income. There will always be clubs that can afford to pay more than others, the solution is that ALL clubs must limit their spending to what they can afford, not what others can afford.
Hmmmm, very interesting post, you raise a few points there that I had not really considered.
I think the really interesting thing might be if the money men in the middle East decide that they want their own clubs to be true global forces and start bidding for top players to go and play in Saudi or in the UAE, that would really put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Indeed, if the aim of the sheikhs is to make Abu Dhabi/Dubai "world cities" and attract mass tourism then it's arguable that it makes more sense for them to build their own competition and teams - a bit like the IPL in cricket - rather than live vicariously via Man City.
Thinking out loud a middle-east based "champions league" with the best global talent on display and playing for middle-eastern clubs might actually take place someday, it would sure fit in with the "post oil" planning they are doing in those parts.
Defoe is total Scum. He epitomises the greed that has ruined the premiership and young English players especially. If I was Harry I would say good riddance.
Also over christmas Defoe said Live on TV, "I will never leave Tottenham, no way, why would i want to go anywhere else" i said to my daughter at the time, that will come back to haunt him!!!
Hmmmm, very interesting post, you raise a few points there that I had not really considered.
I think the really interesting thing might be if the money men in the middle East decide that they want their own clubs to be true global forces and start bidding for top players to go and play in Saudi or in the UAE, that would really put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Indeed, if the aim of the sheikhs is to make Abu Dhabi/Dubai "world cities" and attract mass tourism then it's arguable that it makes more sense for them to build their own competition and teams - a bit like the IPL in cricket - rather than live vicariously via Man City.
Thinking out loud a middle-east based "champions league" with the best global talent on display and playing for middle-eastern clubs might actually take place someday, it would sure fit in with the "post oil" planning they are doing in those parts.
This would also be ideal for the Premier League. The top, top players can go over there where they don't play in any competitions (save for the Club World Cup - or what ever they call it) that the European clubs do and the English teams can fight over the players that are not good enough to go to the Middle East.
I'm sure there is a team in Russia, and a couple in China that are spending silly money on players at the moment. I'm sure I read that Drogba was being offered c. £400k a week somewhere. I don't se how you can need it, to be honest, but if you are not English then I guess you would consider England to be a foreign country just as much as China is - why not, literally, follow the money.
2k a week all of them , they joined for the love of charlton and nothing to do with monetary gain because none of our players (now we're doing well) are mercenary , just like all our good sides in the past they played for peanuts and the love of our support
until the contracts run out or they get a better offer
I think this is a really interesting argument, with some thought-provoking views put forward by OA and KHA. In principle, I'm in agreement with OA.
I wonder what our views would be if the Zabeel deal had gone through, and we were (potentially) in the running for players like Adebayor? Would we just want the best players available, regardless of the implications for the game as a whole, and chase immediate success in the knowledge that we would be done if our backers pulled out? Or would we want our club to be run in a sustainable and "fair" way, thereby rejecting ridiculous pay demands from top players?
I like to think that our suporters (on the whole) would go for sustainable, incremental success. But the temptation of world-class players being within our grasp would be very, very difficult to resist.
I think Harry is clever enough to mean many different things there. City might right off some of the wages owed, but even if Redknapp didn't want to keep Adebayor, or didn't want to pay £200k a week when that could get him at least two of not three other players, he would come out with this to keep Adebayor focused on proving himself. Adebayor does have a bit of a reputation of playing for his next contract, and all the while he believes that there might be one for him if he puts the effort in Redknapp wants.
At the end of the season Redknapp can send him back and they have had a top player, giving his all, for a season for a fraction of what it should have cost him.
Comments
The suggestion that all clubs have to follow with these salaries is also way off the mark. You only even need to consider matching Man City or Chelsea if you want to compete with em. And let's face it there are only really three or four clubs that actually hope to finish above them.
Also Man City are only able to register 25 players, so just buy one that they don't want, then when they ask for £200k a week you just laugh as no one else will offer it to them. In fact, you could just do what Spurs gave done and wait for City to get bored of the player and take him on loan for a fraction of the fee.
The suggestion that City's wages are unsustainable is silly, you are talking about c. £13m a year, the chap that owns the club is worth in excess of £14bn. The interest on that alone would be in excess of £700m a year, so you could afford 25 players on that level of earnings and still have only spent half of the interest and none of the £14bn capital. It's a bit like saying that it's unsustainable for me to spend a two pounds a day on my lunch.
Man City offered these type of contracts to payers like Adebeyor (who I agree is not in the top level of player in the world) as they needed to raise their profile by getting into the Champions League. They needed to offer him what he is on for that length of time to get him to sign, but they have already surpassed him so he is at another club. Ultimately they will 'release' him when his contract expires, or pay him off, and that will have been a 'cost' they were willing to pay to achieve their goal.
In the case of Chelsea, there were suggestions that Abramovich would leave them in a year or so and bust the club. He has been there, now, for six or seven years and he has written off much of the capital expenditure and he has a team looking to build a sustainable club. That is, perhaps, why they have not won the Premier League year on year, which they looked like doing while Mourhino was there. I suspect that he will leave the cub in a decent state when he leaves, and let's not remember that the reason other clubs get into trouble (Darlington being one) is because their owners spend money they don't have and can't afford.
It is more sustainable for a billionaire to spend hundreds of millions than it is for a chap with £20m to spend £25m.
As unpalatable as we find it when those sums of money are being banded about it is just wrong for us to question those that are doing it if it is their money and they have enough. It's, actually, those trying to match them when they can't afford to do so that are the problem. Just like those that have designer handbags and closes and massive credit card debts. It's not about what you spend, it's about what you can afford to spend, and clearly Chelsea and Man City can afford to spend it, so why shouldn't they?
Didn't you read about Rooney's lovely tantrum last year when he threatened to quit United? What was the result of that tantrum again? Oh, that's right, a £230,000 per week pay packet for Mr. Rooney - and Modric tried the same trick in the summer and will get his wish in the summer.
As for the "unsustainable" wages being paid by Man City, yes, you are right of course in saying that Abu Dhabi can - for the time being at least - afford to pay those wages but in inflating wages to the levels that they are doing they are creating an unsustainable wage level for the game as a whole.
Go talk to Daniel Levy at Spurs about this, he is TRYING HIS BALLS OFF to run a proper football business at WHL in which the club is run on a proper financial footing but his task is being made near impossible by Abrahmovich and the Man City owners.
Let's move on to, "As unpalatable as we find it when those sums of money are being banded about it is just wrong for us to question those that are doing it if it is their money and they have enough."
Er, its not wrong for us to question it at all. If they were spending the money on yachts, hookers, mansion or whatever then I would not give a damn because those things would be their own private playthings.
Our national game, however, is not and certainly should not be considered as something which can be used in this way, not when it puts the entire future existence of many clubs into serious question.
By pumping in the money they are and by being willing to absorb £200 million per year losses - meaning Man City will lose close to £1 BILLION over the next five years if their current spending continues (which it clearly will) - they are grossly distorting the playing field.
It is quite funny how those on the political right argue that the laissez-faire model should apply to sports as in all other areas of economic activity when in the Cathedral of Capitalism that is the US most of their major sports are salary-capped and tightly regulated on what owners can do.
For the record, I would describe myself in being quite conservative economically and generally skeptical about state intervention, but the fact is - as the Americans recognise - is that a sports competition can be destroyed completely if the playing field is tilted too far in favor of one or two teams and that a healthier market is only possible via some form of wage capping.
Here in Australia, both the Aussie Rules and Rugby League competitions have been vastly improved by the imposition of a salary cap although I of course recognise that such a move is much more difficult in football because of the international nature of the game.
It is the trickling down the leagues that is unnecessary for our game to survive. Certainly, I agree with you that these sums of money will distort the competition for a limited time, but it is limited as we have had many untouchable teams in the past and their time comes and goes and then they fall back.
The sums of money are irrelavent. In the 70s and 80s there were teams paying more to players, mainly because they had greater attendances etc. and they won things, then they fall back for one reason or another.
The truth is that if Man City had bought Rooney then they would have released another player and the other clubs would have to look elsewhere. Your remark about having to Man United having to keep Rooney is, I still maintain, like comparing a child that says it needs the latest trainers otherwise it can't keep up with it's friends. There comes a point where one has to say no, you must accept that they have more than you. It is ironic that you mention Man United as they have had huge finances for years and as such they have been massively successful. That is the way of the world. They, themselves, have forced up costs with some of their transfer dealings and wages they have paid - just as Blackburn did in the mid 90s.
I'm sure that Doncast are not in trouble because they were trying to compete with someone with more money than they had, and if they are then they, frankly, can have no complaints. Portsmouth are the best example of needing to learn to accept what they are and not try to compete out of their price range. They didn't need to do what they did, and they won an FA Cup with someone else's money.
It is not, under any circumstances, acceptable to get yourself into trouble and claim you had to as someone else had one.
I don't see how we can dictate what someone spends their money on, but blaming them for out failings is what got football, and this country into the mess it is in now.
Maybe I'm missing something from his website, but it seems like sod all to me.
If they had done that then the consequences for them as a club would have been catastrophic because it would have sent out the signal that they could not - and more importantly would not - compete in the wages market for top players.
Once that happens then its just a short stop to the delights of the Europa League because it would only be a matter of time before their other top players like Vidic and Nani pull the same stunt and are off down the road too.
This is why the top clubs who are trying to keep pace with the Chelsea/Man City 'strategic loss' strategy absolutely cannot just sit by and let their players leave, if they do so then they will in turn jeopardise the entire status of the club because once words gets out that you can't keep your top players then you are dead in the water as a Champions League side - just look at Arsenal who are now barrelling down the league and losing to Swansea.
You mention Manchester United's own inflation of the transfer market in the 90's but there is a huge difference between what Man United did - which was to generate a global revenue base and still achieve operating profits or only marginal losses (pre-Glazers) - and what Man City/Chelsea are doing by "accepting" 200 million pounds in annual losses.
I simply cannot understand your comment that the "sums of money are irrelevant" either, the losses that were being suffered by some clubs in the 70's/80's are in absolutely no way comparable to the sums being lost by PL clubs at the moment, the figures involved are shocking.
Even back in their glory years in the 1980's Liverpool - although a very wealthy club by standards of the day - were always just about at break-even point and were actually vulnerable to foreign clubs buying their top talent, they would never have dreamed of running the losses that current clubs are doing.
I can agree to some degree with your final comment, "I don't see how we can dictate what someone spends their money on, but blaming them for out failings is what got football, and this country into the mess it is in now."
It is true that we can't - under the current regulations - dictate what people spend their money on but it is certainly not this that has gotten us to this point in either football or the wider economy.
Everyone - even people like Karen Brady - have accepted that the levels of player wages are crucifying the finances of the current game, it is plain crazy and totally unsustainable for clubs like Bolton and plenty more to be spending 90%+ of their revenues on wages as they currently are - what sort of business can hope to survive doing that?
What is inflating player wages? Well, it WAS the level of money paid by TV companies but this has flattened out over the last couple of years and will continue to do so. I am in regular contact with several APAC pay TV CEO's who tell me that their days of paying top dollar for the EPL are well and truly over.
No, the big current inflator of players wages at the top end of the wages market - which is clearly where the rises are sharpest - are being caused by the "strategic loss" strategy of Abrahmovich and the Abu Dhabi lot which is forcing - rightly or wrongly - their rivals at the top end of the market to try and match them as best they can and therefore produce yet more red ink.
Look at the Adebayor situation, he has been brilliant for Spurs and if they qualify for the CL next season Levy and Redknapp are going to come under massive pressure from the fans to sign him permanently so that they can cement a place in the top four and become a permanent CL competitor.
Adbebayor is going to love that, Levy will try and hold his 70k per week wage ceiling in place but if he does not agree to break the limit to accomodate Adebayor then he is going to cop huge criticism from the Spurs fans - as well as Redknapp in private - because he will be seen to be "not showing ambition."
This is the key here, football is not a rational business, fans are not interested in financial returns they want to see footballing success and achieving that costs a lot of money indeed when you are competing with people who are able and prepared to cop losses of 200 million pounds per year.
It is true that there are no easy answers here but I think that the Financial Fair Play regulations on the board from Platini are at least a step in the right direction and towards restoring some sanity back to the game.
rather than sloshing about skint in the lower leagues cos we were badly run and overspent stupidly
My comment about the sums of money being irrelevant was not aimed at the fact that there will always be clubs with more resources than others. If you don't have the money of another club (irrespective as to where it comes from) then you have to accept it. You can't just go and spend money you don't have because someone else has it. City are making paper losses but they are able to fund them. The fact that there have always been teams with bigger budgets is the point I was looking to make. In the land of the blind the one eye'd man is king. In the 70s and 80s Liverpool had more money (from income not rich benefactors) and they were able to offer more wages.
It's interesting that those that shout the loudest about how high and unrealistic the wages are (and I'm not talking about fans like us) are those that have sanctioned the paying of them. Karen Bradey is a classic example. West Ham are in a terrible mess, but it is in their hands. They could have made the decision to live within their means but they didn't. Complaining about it now looks like sour grapes - like a teenager with a huge credit card bill and a pair of £300 boots and a £1,000 handbag. Karen Bradey was at West Ham when Scott Parker was offered a four year deal worth c.£14.5m let's remember. She is only complaining now because their money has run out.
As soon as ALL clubs start paying what they can afford the wages across all divisions will fall as the players will have to accept a more realistic pay structure. It could be argued that City are only being forced to pay those wages because other teams (that are running up debts) are paying them. Sure there is (or was) a premium for players to accept they were signing for a club not in the Champions League, but that will have gone to some extent now. As soon as teams like Fulham and Bolton reduce what they pay teams like Villa and Arsenal will reduce their wages. Ultimately City and Chelsea, and Man Utd, will no longer have to offer quite as much. West Ham paying Scott Parker £70k a week is, in my view, much more insane than City offering Adebayor £225k a week. Rich business men have always been able to buy a club and distort the league, Jack Walker did it with Blackburn and won the Premier League with £60m. The difference is that now the sums are higher.
Financial fair play will, probably, do what I am advocating for. Man City will just get round it by the owner (or one of his companies) putting in sponsorship or by 'buying' exclusive tickets for huge sums of money. What it will do is restrict gearing, which will prevent Man Utd from paying the next tantrum thrower a small fortune. It will not stop City's billionaire owners from spending their own money. It might, of course, reduce the demands of the players. If the option is, for example, to sign for Man Utd for £30k a week or Man City for £60k a week it will make £225k a week a thing of the past, but either way the football authorities will not be able to control wages. If there was a salary cap then an Abu Dhabi company will just 'choose' to employ players as models or some such thing that will boost their income. There will always be clubs that can afford to pay more than others, the solution is that ALL clubs must limit their spending to what they can afford, not what others can afford.
Hmmmm, very interesting post, you raise a few points there that I had not really considered.
I think the really interesting thing might be if the money men in the middle East decide that they want their own clubs to be true global forces and start bidding for top players to go and play in Saudi or in the UAE, that would really put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Indeed, if the aim of the sheikhs is to make Abu Dhabi/Dubai "world cities" and attract mass tourism then it's arguable that it makes more sense for them to build their own competition and teams - a bit like the IPL in cricket - rather than live vicariously via Man City.
Thinking out loud a middle-east based "champions league" with the best global talent on display and playing for middle-eastern clubs might actually take place someday, it would sure fit in with the "post oil" planning they are doing in those parts.
I'm sure there is a team in Russia, and a couple in China that are spending silly money on players at the moment. I'm sure I read that Drogba was being offered c. £400k a week somewhere. I don't se how you can need it, to be honest, but if you are not English then I guess you would consider England to be a foreign country just as much as China is - why not, literally, follow the money.
until the contracts run out or they get a better offerwe've got our Charlton back
I wonder what our views would be if the Zabeel deal had gone through, and we were (potentially) in the running for players like Adebayor? Would we just want the best players available, regardless of the implications for the game as a whole, and chase immediate success in the knowledge that we would be done if our backers pulled out? Or would we want our club to be run in a sustainable and "fair" way, thereby rejecting ridiculous pay demands from top players?
I like to think that our suporters (on the whole) would go for sustainable, incremental success. But the temptation of world-class players being within our grasp would be very, very difficult to resist.
In any case, it's all hypothetical now!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4067944/Tottenham-news-Harry-Redknapp-urges-Daniel-Levy-to-sign-Emmanuel-Adebayor-permanently.html
At the end of the season Redknapp can send him back and they have had a top player, giving his all, for a season for a fraction of what it should have cost him.