Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
How the Salary Cap Works - Scrapped 09/02/2021? (p2)
Henry Irving
Posts: 85,221
Comments
-
The article probably should have been titled “the Salary Cap - Expectation Setting”!Good to have it explained succinctly in black and white though.6
-
So Sorba Thomas wouldn't count towards the cap, Schwartz does.0
-
Am glad we voted against it0
-
Yep so wouldn't be surprised to see us go back in for Thomas. Schwartz is highly likely to take the rest of our budget I'd expect.sam3110 said:So Sorba Thomas wouldn't count towards the cap, Schwartz does.1 -
If it were me I would make sure the players under the age restriction were given a pay rise of £10k per week each with the strict instruction/knowledge that this was passed around to all the players over the restriction, thus balancing out the wage to each player.
Bloody stupid that an inexperienced 19 year old could be paid at least the same, if not more, to an experienced 30 year old, International player. Even the Government recognises (under the minimum wage rules) that "juniors" don't get paid the same as experienced staff.
I realise the EFL brought the age restriction thingy to ensure teams brought through their youngsters via Academies, but there should be a quota system that says as long as a certain number of academy players are in the 18 man squad then the salary cap doesn't apply or can be exceeded.
Saying all that I would just go over the cap & sod the EFL. Take whatever punishment that comes.....which we would delay for 2 seasons ala S.Wed.
1 -
Your first suggestion would cost £2.6M a year (5 x £10K x 52) and I doubt it would be particularly compelling to a prospective signing “we’ll pay you £2.5K a week, and you’ll get the rest of your salary in a brown envelope from our teenage second choice goalkeeper”. That’s before you consider the tax implications.golfaddick said:If it were me I would make sure the players under the age restriction were given a pay rise of £10k per week each with the strict instruction/knowledge that this was passed around to all the players over the restriction, thus balancing out the wage to each player.
Bloody stupid that an inexperienced 19 year old could be paid at least the same, if not more, to an experienced 30 year old, International player. Even the Government recognises (under the minimum wage rules) that "juniors" don't get paid the same as experienced staff.
I realise the EFL brought the age restriction thingy to ensure teams brought through their youngsters via Academies, but there should be a quota system that says as long as a certain number of academy players are in the 18 man squad then the salary cap doesn't apply or can be exceeded.
Saying all that I would just go over the cap & sod the EFL. Take whatever punishment that comes.....which we would delay for 2 seasons ala S.Wed.
The second option would have us hit with a luxury tax which I believe is (at least) levied at a rate of 100% once you get to significant overspend.
Lets just play by the rules and cut our cloth accordingly, leave ridiculous schemes for other clubs with looser morals.3 -
Better than telling a player of Gunter's experience that he will get £2.5k per week but the 19 year old back up goalkeeper who has yet to make a league appearance is on double that. As I said, nowhere else in industry does a kid straight from college get paid more than someone with 15 years experience.se9addick said:
Your first suggestion would cost £2.6M a year (5 x £10K x 52) and I doubt it would be particularly compelling to a prospective signing “we’ll pay you £2.5K a week, and you’ll get the rest of your salary in a brown envelope from our teenage second choice goalkeeper”. That’s before you consider the tax implications.golfaddick said:If it were me I would make sure the players under the age restriction were given a pay rise of £10k per week each with the strict instruction/knowledge that this was passed around to all the players over the restriction, thus balancing out the wage to each player.
Bloody stupid that an inexperienced 19 year old could be paid at least the same, if not more, to an experienced 30 year old, International player. Even the Government recognises (under the minimum wage rules) that "juniors" don't get paid the same as experienced staff.
I realise the EFL brought the age restriction thingy to ensure teams brought through their youngsters via Academies, but there should be a quota system that says as long as a certain number of academy players are in the 18 man squad then the salary cap doesn't apply or can be exceeded.
Saying all that I would just go over the cap & sod the EFL. Take whatever punishment that comes.....which we would delay for 2 seasons ala S.Wed.
The second option would have us hit with a luxury tax which I believe is (at least) levied at a rate of 100% once you get to significant overspend.
Lets just play by the rules and cut our cloth accordingly, leave ridiculous schemes for other clubs with looser morals.
Said it before I'd exceed the cap & then fight the EFL later. Go to court under restraint of trade or age discrimination.0 -
A good move to publish this explanation of it all and exactly the kind of thing I can't imagine our previous owners ever doing. A bit of expectation management too... I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there's an unexpected departure - doughty maybe1
-
Ridiculous comparisongolfaddick said:
Better than telling a player of Gunter's experience that he will get £2.5k per week but the 19 year old back up goalkeeper who has yet to make a league appearance is on double that. As I said, nowhere else in industry does a kid straight from college get paid more than someone with 15 years experience.se9addick said:
Your first suggestion would cost £2.6M a year (5 x £10K x 52) and I doubt it would be particularly compelling to a prospective signing “we’ll pay you £2.5K a week, and you’ll get the rest of your salary in a brown envelope from our teenage second choice goalkeeper”. That’s before you consider the tax implications.golfaddick said:If it were me I would make sure the players under the age restriction were given a pay rise of £10k per week each with the strict instruction/knowledge that this was passed around to all the players over the restriction, thus balancing out the wage to each player.
Bloody stupid that an inexperienced 19 year old could be paid at least the same, if not more, to an experienced 30 year old, International player. Even the Government recognises (under the minimum wage rules) that "juniors" don't get paid the same as experienced staff.
I realise the EFL brought the age restriction thingy to ensure teams brought through their youngsters via Academies, but there should be a quota system that says as long as a certain number of academy players are in the 18 man squad then the salary cap doesn't apply or can be exceeded.
Saying all that I would just go over the cap & sod the EFL. Take whatever punishment that comes.....which we would delay for 2 seasons ala S.Wed.
The second option would have us hit with a luxury tax which I believe is (at least) levied at a rate of 100% once you get to significant overspend.
Lets just play by the rules and cut our cloth accordingly, leave ridiculous schemes for other clubs with looser morals.
Said it before I'd exceed the cap & then fight the EFL later. Go to court under restraint of trade or age discrimination.
Why would a 19 year old back up goalkeeper who has yet to make an appearance be on 5k a week ?0 -
He wouldn't be, but we could offer them that. If someone like Aaron Henry progresses we could in theory offer him 10k a week to stay as an 18/19 year old while our best players are only on 2-3k.MrOneLung said:
Ridiculous comparisongolfaddick said:
Better than telling a player of Gunter's experience that he will get £2.5k per week but the 19 year old back up goalkeeper who has yet to make a league appearance is on double that. As I said, nowhere else in industry does a kid straight from college get paid more than someone with 15 years experience.se9addick said:
Your first suggestion would cost £2.6M a year (5 x £10K x 52) and I doubt it would be particularly compelling to a prospective signing “we’ll pay you £2.5K a week, and you’ll get the rest of your salary in a brown envelope from our teenage second choice goalkeeper”. That’s before you consider the tax implications.golfaddick said:If it were me I would make sure the players under the age restriction were given a pay rise of £10k per week each with the strict instruction/knowledge that this was passed around to all the players over the restriction, thus balancing out the wage to each player.
Bloody stupid that an inexperienced 19 year old could be paid at least the same, if not more, to an experienced 30 year old, International player. Even the Government recognises (under the minimum wage rules) that "juniors" don't get paid the same as experienced staff.
I realise the EFL brought the age restriction thingy to ensure teams brought through their youngsters via Academies, but there should be a quota system that says as long as a certain number of academy players are in the 18 man squad then the salary cap doesn't apply or can be exceeded.
Saying all that I would just go over the cap & sod the EFL. Take whatever punishment that comes.....which we would delay for 2 seasons ala S.Wed.
The second option would have us hit with a luxury tax which I believe is (at least) levied at a rate of 100% once you get to significant overspend.
Lets just play by the rules and cut our cloth accordingly, leave ridiculous schemes for other clubs with looser morals.
Said it before I'd exceed the cap & then fight the EFL later. Go to court under restraint of trade or age discrimination.
Why would a 19 year old back up goalkeeper who has yet to make an appearance be on 5k a week ?0 - Sponsored links:
-
"Penalties have been agreed for clubs who exceed the cap by up to 5%, with fines rising to £3 for every £1 of overspend. Money collected will be redistributed among clubs who have stayed within the rules. A disciplinary commission will deal with clubs who break the cap by more than 5%."
So if you go 5% over the £2.5m (£125k) you have to pay £375k as a fine. Some might say that is a price worth paying, especially as they are not the individual paying it.
Over that the commission could deduct points or block promotion? Is that a price worth paying?3 -
We can offer any player 10k a week. We'd just eat up our budget pretty quickly and have to bring in all the best young players to balance things.cafcfan1990 said:
He wouldn't be, but we could offer them that. If someone like Aaron Henry progresses we could in theory offer him 10k a week to stay as an 18/19 year old while our best players are only on 2-3k.MrOneLung said:
Ridiculous comparisongolfaddick said:
Better than telling a player of Gunter's experience that he will get £2.5k per week but the 19 year old back up goalkeeper who has yet to make a league appearance is on double that. As I said, nowhere else in industry does a kid straight from college get paid more than someone with 15 years experience.se9addick said:
Your first suggestion would cost £2.6M a year (5 x £10K x 52) and I doubt it would be particularly compelling to a prospective signing “we’ll pay you £2.5K a week, and you’ll get the rest of your salary in a brown envelope from our teenage second choice goalkeeper”. That’s before you consider the tax implications.golfaddick said:If it were me I would make sure the players under the age restriction were given a pay rise of £10k per week each with the strict instruction/knowledge that this was passed around to all the players over the restriction, thus balancing out the wage to each player.
Bloody stupid that an inexperienced 19 year old could be paid at least the same, if not more, to an experienced 30 year old, International player. Even the Government recognises (under the minimum wage rules) that "juniors" don't get paid the same as experienced staff.
I realise the EFL brought the age restriction thingy to ensure teams brought through their youngsters via Academies, but there should be a quota system that says as long as a certain number of academy players are in the 18 man squad then the salary cap doesn't apply or can be exceeded.
Saying all that I would just go over the cap & sod the EFL. Take whatever punishment that comes.....which we would delay for 2 seasons ala S.Wed.
The second option would have us hit with a luxury tax which I believe is (at least) levied at a rate of 100% once you get to significant overspend.
Lets just play by the rules and cut our cloth accordingly, leave ridiculous schemes for other clubs with looser morals.
Said it before I'd exceed the cap & then fight the EFL later. Go to court under restraint of trade or age discrimination.
Why would a 19 year old back up goalkeeper who has yet to make an appearance be on 5k a week ?0 -
By that argument, presumably you support the financial cheating by Wendies and others?golfaddick said:
Better than telling a player of Gunter's experience that he will get £2.5k per week but the 19 year old back up goalkeeper who has yet to make a league appearance is on double that. As I said, nowhere else in industry does a kid straight from college get paid more than someone with 15 years experience.se9addick said:
Your first suggestion would cost £2.6M a year (5 x £10K x 52) and I doubt it would be particularly compelling to a prospective signing “we’ll pay you £2.5K a week, and you’ll get the rest of your salary in a brown envelope from our teenage second choice goalkeeper”. That’s before you consider the tax implications.golfaddick said:If it were me I would make sure the players under the age restriction were given a pay rise of £10k per week each with the strict instruction/knowledge that this was passed around to all the players over the restriction, thus balancing out the wage to each player.
Bloody stupid that an inexperienced 19 year old could be paid at least the same, if not more, to an experienced 30 year old, International player. Even the Government recognises (under the minimum wage rules) that "juniors" don't get paid the same as experienced staff.
I realise the EFL brought the age restriction thingy to ensure teams brought through their youngsters via Academies, but there should be a quota system that says as long as a certain number of academy players are in the 18 man squad then the salary cap doesn't apply or can be exceeded.
Saying all that I would just go over the cap & sod the EFL. Take whatever punishment that comes.....which we would delay for 2 seasons ala S.Wed.
The second option would have us hit with a luxury tax which I believe is (at least) levied at a rate of 100% once you get to significant overspend.
Lets just play by the rules and cut our cloth accordingly, leave ridiculous schemes for other clubs with looser morals.
Said it before I'd exceed the cap & then fight the EFL later. Go to court under restraint of trade or age discrimination.I want to go up, but we should do it cleanly by the rules ... despite good aims, the rules are poorly defined ... but they are there, so we should abide by them.2 -
Well yes but realistically unless we appoint someone as stupid as Fraeye it's not going to happen. The most I can see us paying a player is around 5k a week.Dazzler21 said:
We can offer any player 10k a week. We'd just eat up our budget pretty quickly and have to bring in all the best young players to balance things.cafcfan1990 said:
He wouldn't be, but we could offer them that. If someone like Aaron Henry progresses we could in theory offer him 10k a week to stay as an 18/19 year old while our best players are only on 2-3k.MrOneLung said:
Ridiculous comparisongolfaddick said:
Better than telling a player of Gunter's experience that he will get £2.5k per week but the 19 year old back up goalkeeper who has yet to make a league appearance is on double that. As I said, nowhere else in industry does a kid straight from college get paid more than someone with 15 years experience.se9addick said:
Your first suggestion would cost £2.6M a year (5 x £10K x 52) and I doubt it would be particularly compelling to a prospective signing “we’ll pay you £2.5K a week, and you’ll get the rest of your salary in a brown envelope from our teenage second choice goalkeeper”. That’s before you consider the tax implications.golfaddick said:If it were me I would make sure the players under the age restriction were given a pay rise of £10k per week each with the strict instruction/knowledge that this was passed around to all the players over the restriction, thus balancing out the wage to each player.
Bloody stupid that an inexperienced 19 year old could be paid at least the same, if not more, to an experienced 30 year old, International player. Even the Government recognises (under the minimum wage rules) that "juniors" don't get paid the same as experienced staff.
I realise the EFL brought the age restriction thingy to ensure teams brought through their youngsters via Academies, but there should be a quota system that says as long as a certain number of academy players are in the 18 man squad then the salary cap doesn't apply or can be exceeded.
Saying all that I would just go over the cap & sod the EFL. Take whatever punishment that comes.....which we would delay for 2 seasons ala S.Wed.
The second option would have us hit with a luxury tax which I believe is (at least) levied at a rate of 100% once you get to significant overspend.
Lets just play by the rules and cut our cloth accordingly, leave ridiculous schemes for other clubs with looser morals.
Said it before I'd exceed the cap & then fight the EFL later. Go to court under restraint of trade or age discrimination.
Why would a 19 year old back up goalkeeper who has yet to make an appearance be on 5k a week ?0 -
Definitely not worth paying the price and also massive hypocrisy given our criticism of the likes of Wednesday. Like you say, not us paying it but I personally wouldn't be against us going over and paying the fine. If we went over by 50k it would be a 150k fine which is a fairly insignificant figure.Henry Irving said:"Penalties have been agreed for clubs who exceed the cap by up to 5%, with fines rising to £3 for every £1 of overspend. Money collected will be redistributed among clubs who have stayed within the rules. A disciplinary commission will deal with clubs who break the cap by more than 5%."
So if you go 5% over the £2.5m (£125k) you have to pay £375k as a fine. Some might say that is a price worth paying, especially as they are not the individual paying it.
Over that the commission could deduct points or block promotion? Is that a price worth paying?1 -
Agree and that might already be in Gallen and Sandgaard's calculations.cafcfan1990 said:
Definitely not worth paying the price and also massive hypocrisy given our criticism of the likes of Wednesday. Like you say, not us paying it but I personally wouldn't be against us going over and paying the fine. If we went over by 50k it would be a 150k fine which is a fairly insignificant figure.Henry Irving said:"Penalties have been agreed for clubs who exceed the cap by up to 5%, with fines rising to £3 for every £1 of overspend. Money collected will be redistributed among clubs who have stayed within the rules. A disciplinary commission will deal with clubs who break the cap by more than 5%."
So if you go 5% over the £2.5m (£125k) you have to pay £375k as a fine. Some might say that is a price worth paying, especially as they are not the individual paying it.
Over that the commission could deduct points or block promotion? Is that a price worth paying?
IF IF IF we go up then FFP (at present) is much more generous in the championship.
IF IF IF we stay down then we have a lot of players, such as Pearce, Williams?, JFC? out of contract who we can thank for their service and release or negotiate new deals with under the cap. As we've seen with Matthews and Andre Green getting a deal is hard and that will be causing wage deflation.2 -
If there was simply a token fine, I doubt we would be trying so hard to stay within it.
It is crazy that clubs have an incentive to pay players under 21 more. Maybe something better could have been devised. This cap seems to be more about making the playing field more level for smaller clubs than anything else.
Maybe clubs could have been given the option of buying themselves out of the cap - say £500k and that money distributed to clubs who don't.0 -
I thought you told us you were a financial advisor, Golfie?golfaddick said:If it were me I would make sure the players under the age restriction were given a pay rise of £10k per week each with the strict instruction/knowledge that this was passed around to all the players over the restriction, thus balancing out the wage to each player.
Bloody stupid that an inexperienced 19 year old could be paid at least the same, if not more, to an experienced 30 year old, International player. Even the Government recognises (under the minimum wage rules) that "juniors" don't get paid the same as experienced staff.
I realise the EFL brought the age restriction thingy to ensure teams brought through their youngsters via Academies, but there should be a quota system that says as long as a certain number of academy players are in the 18 man squad then the salary cap doesn't apply or can be exceeded.
Saying all that I would just go over the cap & sod the EFL. Take whatever punishment that comes.....which we would delay for 2 seasons ala S.Wed.
5 -
This salary cap is just a glossy, shiny version of the 'Old Pals Act' as it was known in pre league pyramid days.
The only difference is that this cap is designed to protect Premier League and Championship clubs so that ambitious upstarts don't gate crash their cosy little club.
The 'Old Pals Act' was a version of 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' which meant that the usual bottom 4 of division four, which (until Brian Clough came along) would include the likes of Hartlepools (as they were then) United and Rochdale most years, were invariably 're-elected' as they called it then.2 -
Don't want it to happen for obvious reasons but will be interesting if we don't go up with those contracts. I don't think Williams would stay (if Bowyer is still manager). Pearce, JFC and Amos are just some of the players who would have to take wage cuts. I don't think the club will be in a terrible position because players released from Prem/Champ clubs are simply going to have to take cuts in order to find a club. That is where I think we will see the legal action because I don't think clubs are going to want the quality of the playing staff to decrease, I think we will see smaller squads with youngsters promoted as cover.Henry Irving said:
Agree and that might already be in Gallen and Sandgaard's calculations.cafcfan1990 said:
Definitely not worth paying the price and also massive hypocrisy given our criticism of the likes of Wednesday. Like you say, not us paying it but I personally wouldn't be against us going over and paying the fine. If we went over by 50k it would be a 150k fine which is a fairly insignificant figure.Henry Irving said:"Penalties have been agreed for clubs who exceed the cap by up to 5%, with fines rising to £3 for every £1 of overspend. Money collected will be redistributed among clubs who have stayed within the rules. A disciplinary commission will deal with clubs who break the cap by more than 5%."
So if you go 5% over the £2.5m (£125k) you have to pay £375k as a fine. Some might say that is a price worth paying, especially as they are not the individual paying it.
Over that the commission could deduct points or block promotion? Is that a price worth paying?
IF IF IF we go up then FFP (at present) is much more generous in the championship.
IF IF IF we stay down then we have a lot of players, such as Pearce, Williams?, JFC? out of contract who we can thank for their service and release or negotiate new deals with under the cap. As we've seen with Matthews and Andre Green getting a deal is hard and that will be causing wage deflation.1 - Sponsored links:
-
If all the clubs who voted against it said to the EFL they were going to take legal action against the cap's validity in law, it would be interesting.
Surely, it wouldn't stand up in court.
0 -
I'm sure this is what clubs hire and seek from the likes of Farnell? Am shocked that TS is the only owner in English who has aimed to out him.0
-
If Doughty is Adam Ant he's not going to sign a new deal then surely it makes sense to move him on in January if we get a decent offer?jams said:A good move to publish this explanation of it all and exactly the kind of thing I can't imagine our previous owners ever doing. A bit of expectation management too... I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there's an unexpected departure - doughty maybe0 -
The problem is, he doesn't count towards the cap. However, if he won't sign which I assume is a decent offer with Sandgaard now our owner, I think it would be good to ship out ungrateful traitors as soon as possible.1
-
Yeah Im thinking more of getting some sort of fee now, rather than risk him going to Scotland in the summer where we get the same pitance we got for AriboMuttleyCAFC said:The problem is, he doesn't count towards the cap. However, if he won't sign which I assume is a decent offer with Sandgaard now our owner, I think it would be good to ship out ungrateful traitors as soon as possible.
Wages wont make much difference but at least his sale can go some way to helping the club, the same way the Grant sell on clause has gone0 -
Apparently, he's not known as Alfie Spanner for no reason.MuttleyCAFC said:The problem is, he doesn't count towards the cap. However, if he won't sign which I assume is a decent offer with Sandgaard now our owner, I think it would be good to ship out ungrateful traitors as soon as possible.
3 -
.0
-
I am & that's why this age discrimination (sorry, wage cap) is total bollox. I'm all for clubs spending within their means, but what we (now) could spend dwarfs teams like Accrington & Wimbledon. So why do 24 clubs all have to keep "expenditure" the same when some have far greater income. If you want a mortgage you dont get to borrow the same as your neighbour, your workmates or your boss. Lenders usually lend around 4.5 x income - not a set figure.Oggy Red said:
I thought you told us you were a financial advisor, Golfie?golfaddick said:If it were me I would make sure the players under the age restriction were given a pay rise of £10k per week each with the strict instruction/knowledge that this was passed around to all the players over the restriction, thus balancing out the wage to each player.
Bloody stupid that an inexperienced 19 year old could be paid at least the same, if not more, to an experienced 30 year old, International player. Even the Government recognises (under the minimum wage rules) that "juniors" don't get paid the same as experienced staff.
I realise the EFL brought the age restriction thingy to ensure teams brought through their youngsters via Academies, but there should be a quota system that says as long as a certain number of academy players are in the 18 man squad then the salary cap doesn't apply or can be exceeded.
Saying all that I would just go over the cap & sod the EFL. Take whatever punishment that comes.....which we would delay for 2 seasons ala S.Wed.
As I said in my previous post, there seems very legitimate ways of getting round it. None that would ever be taken up but could be done if you (like me) want to stick 2 fingers up to the EFL.
Personally I'd buy the players that I'd want & pay them accordingly. If it breaks the cap then so be it. Anything more than a fine would be disproportionate to the crime & to other recent "punishments". But it wouldn't get that far as I'm sure the wage cap could be challenged legally.1 -
Now that's a good point and I full agree with you on that, Golfie.golfaddick said:
I'm all for clubs spending within their means, but what we (now) could spend dwarfs teams like Accrington & Wimbledon. So why do 24 clubs all have to keep "expenditure" the same when some have far greater income.Oggy Red said:
I thought you told us you were a financial advisor, Golfie?golfaddick said:If it were me I would make sure the players under the age restriction were given a pay rise of £10k per week each with the strict instruction/knowledge that this was passed around to all the players over the restriction, thus balancing out the wage to each player.
Bloody stupid that an inexperienced 19 year old could be paid at least the same, if not more, to an experienced 30 year old, International player. Even the Government recognises (under the minimum wage rules) that "juniors" don't get paid the same as experienced staff.
I realise the EFL brought the age restriction thingy to ensure teams brought through their youngsters via Academies, but there should be a quota system that says as long as a certain number of academy players are in the 18 man squad then the salary cap doesn't apply or can be exceeded.
Saying all that I would just go over the cap & sod the EFL. Take whatever punishment that comes.....which we would delay for 2 seasons ala S.Wed.
If you want a mortgage you dont get to borrow the same as your neighbour, your workmates or your boss. Lenders usually lend around 4.5 x income - not a set figure.
And, of course, rather than 'one size fits all' the wage cap should have been, say ........ set as a percentage of 1 x the individual club income level.
Or whatever, applicable to the income of each individual club.
I can't see any point in deliberately confronting the EFL ...... you know, I know and everybody knows - we'll not only get hit by at least 3 x excess expenditure fines, but no doubt would end up with embargoes, points deductions, denial of promotion, disciplinary relegation, you name it. We would be made an example of to warn others.
0 -
As long as he keeps wearing white socks.ForeverAddickted said:
If Doughty is Adam Ant he's not going to sign a new deal then surely it makes sense to move him on in January if we get a decent offer?jams said:A good move to publish this explanation of it all and exactly the kind of thing I can't imagine our previous owners ever doing. A bit of expectation management too... I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there's an unexpected departure - doughty maybe1
