jamie
TFF member
Posts: 354
|
Post by jamie on Jun 9, 2008 18:50:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andygulls on Jun 9, 2008 20:44:47 GMT
Fewer games on the TV but with increased distribution for the home teams. Assuming we remain a competitive side next season may bring some benefits.
The issues surrounding salary capping and its aim make for an interesting debate.
The sad fact is that the rules we have chosen to run with in this country have not had the desired impact of protecting teams in terms of financial security. Salary capping does not work if you do not have teams in a sound financial state to begin with. It seems to me that we should be firstly trying to ensure that only fit and proper people with professionally audited business plans and accounts should be allowed to run a football club. It is that which will see an end to the mess that the fans of Rotherham Utd and Luton Town are going through. A situation with which we as fans who lived through the Roberts era can relate to. Once you have that financially stable playing field, then you can start talking about salary capping from the perspective of competitive balance. Assuming of course that you could bring the PFA on board.
Even the hugely successful NFL in the USA, which has produced a tremendously successful financial position for its owners and players does so from the basis of holding very few professional teams (32 in the country the size of the USA) and the benefit of a collective bargaining agreement with the players union (NFLPA). The current agreement with the unions is due to run out and there will be much debate and negotiation to be had between the owners and players in an attempt by each to get a little more out of the pot. If they get too greedy then it's possible for them both to lose out overall. A few teams will get richer and a number poorer by comparison. That in turn will lead to fewer players on the top salaries. A balance needs to be struck.
In this country our traditions are against a franchising of football. It may be argued that the Premiership clubs are close to following that ideal for the businessmen that now own so many of them.
For the rest I wonder whether there is either the desire or the legal basis for ensuring that financial clarity and stability comes at the heart of membership of a league. Leaving fans and local businesses alike to pray to whoever their God may be, that the people in charge of "their" team are the "right" people.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jun 9, 2008 20:53:56 GMT
What a first class post Andy and a great read.
As a paying customer the drop in the number of games, is maybe a little disappointing. I do believe that it will help the club, as we will not have to play so many live games, so not so many fixture changes.
Most will feel that football really should be played on a Saturday afternoon.
The club sure seem happy with the capping changes,I'm sure they have already done their sums and know there will be extra money available for the team.
|
|
jamie
TFF member
Posts: 354
|
Post by jamie on Jun 9, 2008 22:21:38 GMT
Fewer games on the TV but with increased distribution for the home teams. Assuming we remain a competitive side next season may bring some benefits. The issues surrounding salary capping and its aim make for an interesting debate. The sad fact is that the rules we have chosen to run with in this country have not had the desired impact of protecting teams in terms of financial security. Salary capping does not work if you do not have teams in a sound financial state to begin with. It seems to me that we should be firstly trying to ensure that only fit and proper people with professionally audited business plans and accounts should be allowed to run a football club. It is that which will see an end to the mess that the fans of Rotherham Utd and Luton Town are going through. A situation with which we as fans who lived through the Roberts era can relate to. Once you have that financially stable playing field, then you can start talking about salary capping from the perspective of competitive balance. Assuming of course that you could bring the PFA on board. Even the hugely successful NFL in the USA, which has produced a tremendously successful financial position for its owners and players does so from the basis of holding very few professional teams (32 in the country the size of the USA) and the benefit of a collective bargaining agreement with the players union (NFLPA). The current agreement with the unions is due to run out and there will be much debate and negotiation to be had between the owners and players in an attempt by each to get a little more out of the pot. If they get too greedy then it's possible for them both to lose out overall. A few teams will get richer and a number poorer by comparison. That in turn will lead to fewer players on the top salaries. A balance needs to be struck. In this country our traditions are against a franchising of football. It may be argued that the Premiership clubs are close to following that ideal for the businessmen that now own so many of them. For the rest I wonder whether there is either the desire or the legal basis for ensuring that financial clarity and stability comes at the heart of membership of a league. Leaving fans and local businesses alike to pray to whoever their God may be, that the people in charge of "their" team are the "right" people. That, my friend is why Dave created this website. Great post. Very interesting what you say about fit and proper owners. Do we still have that "rule" or has the powers that be realised that unless you follow it there is no point in having the rule. Who is supposed to decide who is fit and proper and is there a criteria/ format with which to audit against? |
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Jun 10, 2008 3:07:19 GMT
 I think to take the examples of Luton and Rotherham of "poorly run clubs" is a little unfair of the current regimes at Kenilworth Road and Millmoor. Both have stepped into the breach (indeed yawning chasm) created by their predecessors - a breach so great that they have failed in their almost futile battles to rescue the situations. It's almost akin to railing against the current board of OUR club for not having an adequate youth system, not having the best of training facilities and only having four players worth retaining as professionals a year ago. On a general scale, and OUR level of the BSP in particular; the biggest problem as I see it is that too many clubs have tried to run before they can walk in that they are trying to embrace full time professionalism when their income and gates are clearly only geared to supporting part time football. They are paranoid that they "cannot compete" as a part time club in a level of football that was clearly created in relatively recent times purely to cater for part time clubs just below the lowest level of full time football. Now, with the advent of automatic promotion for one club and a second club being able to accompany them through the play offs; too many clubs are operating beyond their obvious limitations and that is what the various guises of the BSP Business Controls are trying desperately hard to prevent..................and quite rightly too in my opinion - for it only goes to devalue a competition when there are annual re-aligning of leagues and memberships that override what has been achieved on the playing field; and does nothing in the quest for extra promotion places to be made available between the BSP and the Football League in the future. For any clubs doubting that they can be fairly successful and retain a sense of fiscal wisdom whilst remaining part time, I would point to Burton Albion who in my opinion were robbed of a play off final spot only by the gross incompetence the match officials in their play off semi final.
|
|
|
|
Post by andygulls on Jun 10, 2008 20:55:27 GMT
Merse
I agree with you in that it is not the current people running both Luton and Rotherham that I am critcising. It is as you suggest previous regimes that have caused the issue. But the lack of control that the authorities have over the way a club is run (as opposed to the way the NFL functions in the USA) is to my mind a problem.
Indeed as you identify the issue also impacts on those in the BSPL. Of course it is also the pressures from supporters craving instant success without long term planning that those running football clubs have to cope with and resist. That is where I think a stronger hand in the way the authorities run the game can assist.
|
|
I think to take the examples of Luton and Rotherham of "poorly run clubs" is a little unfair of the current regimes at Kenilworth Road and Millmoor.