Salary cap.

[Conker]

Thing is £2.5M for Gillingham at L1 is not quite as restrictive.

[arsene wengers coat]

Thing is £2.5M for Gillingham at L1 is not quite as restrictive.

Exactly. They have a 150% more than we do.

[NorthLondonStag]

I hope the union takes the decision to court. It’s a restraint of trade.

No it's not, how do you work that out?

As I said above the question has been raised in relation to the RFU salary cap and the issue does not appear to be clear.

For competition law the authorities look at the outcome, as much as the form. If the effect of the rules is that it could result in an anti competitive outcome then there may be an issue. I am not a competition lawyer so I do not know the answer.

I would assume that the EFL took advice on the point.

Saracens just got a 35 point deduction to ensure they finished bottom and got relegated. They were bankrolled and were by far the richest team in the league along with Bristol, when all the rest were on an even keel. They were also fined £5.36m after an inquiry into contracts between owner Nigel Wray and some of their players. The salary cap the RFU introduced was to maintain competition and to stop all the non-rich teams becoming cannon-fodder for the big 2. This was to maintain the integrity of the league and to ensure all the England players didn't play for just 2 teams who could pay them the most.

The difference for a L1 and L2 salary cap is that any team that 'smashes the league' is promoted and so the integrity of the league isn't damaged if there is a big spender compared to the others, because they won't be in the same league the next season.

The RFU salary cap is akin to a cap on clubs like City, United, and Chelsea who have been paying out the most in recent years in a view to keep the league competitive.

It's worth noting that Saracens got there points deduction for paying players outside the playing contract with the club.


The salary cap will condemn us to at least another decade of bargain-basement football.

Good points, as always, AWC. I am against a salary cap too.

My original post was to agree with/support Bellwhiff that there's a question mark generally about whether salary caps are anti-competitive.

There's a lot on the internet about it, although mainly about salary caps in the US for their sports.

[Billy the fish]

Thing is £2.5M for Gillingham at L1 is not quite as restrictive.

Exactly. They have a 150% more than we do.

Or hypothetically say Sunderland got relegated down to division 4 drawing in 40,000 fans into the stadium of light every other week but not getting promoted year on year , where does that money go ? Infrastructure? Already in place , youth set up ?? For other clubs higher up to cherry pick ?? ... one Cap does not fit all to coin a phrase ..

[Big yella]

Thing is £2.5M for Gillingham at L1 is not quite as restrictive.

Exactly. They have a 150% more than we do.

I'd check your maths.

[HU7stag]

Thing is £2.5M for Gillingham at L1 is not quite as restrictive.

Exactly. They have a 150% more than we do.

I'd check your maths.

I'm glad it's not just me.

[Conker]

We are in a situation where the dynamics of L1 means the cap would benefit us at that level, but it hinders us at L2 with £1.5m. That being said I am all for a cap, I just think the amount is a bit low, I reckon a extra half a million would have been better.

Although thanks to JR we had the benefit of signing (7?) players before it came in.

[HU7stag]

The proposed Championship salary cap of £18 million seems a bit excessive compared to the leagues below.

- Championship £18m*
- League 1 £2.5m
- League 2 £1.5m
- National League £0.9m*

*Proposed

[stagmanrob]

With a cap of £1.5m then it should realistically see a lot of League 2 sides running at a profit.

If that becomes the case, I wonder how much of these profits will get invested in infastructure, and how many will become dividends for dodgy owners.

Does that not make big clubs falling on harder times more of a money making proposition for said dodgy owners?

Clubs with big attendances but a small wage bill should in theory turn the biggest profits come the end of the year like Bradford for example.

[kevin kents tasce]

To balance the comments about dodgy owners,

Removing to opportunity to make a quick buck by loading a club with debt whilst paying way over the odds on wages in the hope of promotion might prevent such people getting involved in the first place and provide better opportunities for local or even supporter based ownership models to emerge.

[arsene wengers coat]

Thing is £2.5M for Gillingham at L1 is not quite as restrictive.

Exactly. They have a 150% more than we do.

I'd check your maths.

I'm glad it's not just me.

Sorry, I thought we had a £1m cap..

[gazza1988]

Thing is £2.5M for Gillingham at L1 is not quite as restrictive.

Exactly. They have a 150% more than we do.

I'd check your maths.

I'm glad it's not just me.

Sorry, I thought we had a £1m cap..

Wouldn't that be 250% increase from £1m?

[arsene wengers coat]

No. 150% uplift. Doesn't matter it was wrong anyway.

[yorkstag]

It also includes agents fees bonuses etc which whether we like it or not is currently how we operate

[Sedgwick]

Heard something about a young player we wanted to sign permanently will have to come on loan due to the cap.. and I imagine if he were to do well with us he will be sold by the other club or recalled and loaned to a bigger club..... so its already screwing us over.

[part time pete]

Apparently the info here from newspapers not in the EFL statement.

[i]Clubs also agreed to maximum 20-man squads, although players under the age of 21 will be exempt from this and the salary cap, and squads of 22 will be allowed in 2020-21 in a transition season.

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%.[/i]

It might be worthwhile Eggy putting dates of birth of the players who are contracted to us on his list at the top of the message board threads.

[MTFCMAD]

Heard something about a young player we wanted to sign permanently will have to come on loan due to the cap.. and I imagine if he were to do well with us he will be sold by the other club or recalled and loaned to a bigger club..... so its already screwing us over.

How olds the young player ?

[part time pete]

Heard something about a young player we wanted to sign permanently will have to come on loan due to the cap.. and I imagine if he were to do well with us he will be sold by the other club or recalled and loaned to a bigger club..... so its already screwing us over.

How olds the young player ?

Presumably over 21

[MTFCMusings]

Apparently the info here from newspapers not in the EFL statement.

[i]Clubs also agreed to maximum 20-man squads, although players under the age of 21 will be exempt from this and the salary cap, and squads of 22 will be allowed in 2020-21 in a transition season.

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%.[/i]

It might be worthwhile Eggy putting dates of birth of the players who are contracted to us on his list at the top of the message board threads.

We have 18 players aged 21 or over by my reckoning. 20 if Gibbens and Graham have resigned.

[The One]

Apparently the info here from newspapers not in the EFL statement.

[i]Clubs also agreed to maximum 20-man squads, although players under the age of 21 will be exempt from this and the salary cap, and squads of 22 will be allowed in 2020-21 in a transition season.

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%.[/i]

It might be worthwhile Eggy putting dates of birth of the players who are contracted to us on his list at the top of the message board threads.

Its Devon who does the list not Eggy

[oldweststander]

Thing is £2.5M for Gillingham at L1 is not quite as restrictive.

Exactly. They have a 150% more than we do.

No they don't, they have £1m more, that equates to 66%.

[I am Spartacus]

Read the title of this thread extremely incorrectly. Why 6 pages on a hat made out of Celery? Surely other vegetables would do equally as good a job?

Maybe they sell them at Forest Green Rovers?

[STAGS FOR LIFE]

Read the title of this thread extremely incorrectly. Why 6 pages on a hat made out of Celery? Surely other vegetables would do equally as good a job?

Maybe they sell them at Forest Green Rovers?

Look nice with A nice Jacket potato

[bellwhiff]

The more I think if this, the more wrong it is. If it’s to prevent clubs overspending then get your audit processes fit for purpose.

Football by definition is a meritocracy. That’s the whole point of it. If one club can afford more than another then that’s the way it is. What we have now is an artificial restriction that will do more to keep us down than anything. It’s wrong. Utterly wrong.

[James]

Heard something about a young player we wanted to sign permanently will have to come on loan due to the cap.. and I imagine if he were to do well with us he will be sold by the other club or recalled and loaned to a bigger club..... so its already screwing us over.

Isn’t that something that’s happened for years though?

We probably *wanted* to permanently sign players like Tyler Walker or Ben Whiteman, couldn’t afford them so we signed them on loan. They did well with us and their parent team get the benefit.