65% wage cap. How will it affect your club?

gimmick

Clubs wage bills cannot be higher than 65% of their turnover.

From a Cork City fans point of view, the short term future is bleak. It is envisaged that we will lose more players and will have to depend heavily on the youth system for our players. Wouldnt be so bad except for the weakness of the U21 league.

Our attendenaces are down, even in our reign as champions, and are unlikely to rise next season, especially as tickets are going form €13 to €15. Season tickets are down to €199 for league games only.

It will make for interesting times eL wise, as certain clubs will not be able to fall into the wage structure cap. Its a good move, but clubs should be given more time to get it right ie an extra 12 months.

KdjaCL

Pats may be ok, with the pub and only 4 full time players afaik we are at a % less than 65% atm.

Tbh cant see some "other" clubs ignoring this 2 spring to mind who offer large wages without the attds to back them up. Can also see the FAi doing feck all about them.


kdjac

Big Ears

I assume the departure of Murphy and O'Callaghan(well it seems inevitable) will lessen the wage bill a good bit , but then again the players do have to be replaced .

Shels could have a lot of trouble with this .

gimmick

^ yes. But when you consider the wage bill is approx €24k per week, those 2 leaving wont make a huge difference, and as you say, they will need replacing.

_blank_

I think we'll be ok.

















Thank you, I'm here all week, try the Lasagne, it's delicious.


Hmm. I think some of the 'fringe' players could be let go.

Moore for a start. Crawley. Baker. Crawford may stop playing ( but he'll remain on the staff as assistant to Mick Neville as U21 boss). I can't see Jamie Harris lasting too much longer at the club. I can see one of Williams or Delaney being pushed. Williams would be my choice to go, as Delaney is younger. Crowe back to Bohs? Jayo to Scandanavia?

Is this 65% of turnover on playing staff only, or the full thing?

bohsman

Should leave us a budget a couple of times bigger than any other team

galwayrush

I think Galway United will be ok, it will be tough, but there has been a lot of work done in the past two years to get the house in order,

KdjaCL

bohsman wrote:

Should leave us a budget a couple of times bigger than any other team

Hmmm

Thinking fo ways for Ollie to get out fo this and Bohsman made me think what constitutes turnover at an El club?

At the start of the season you submit your financia details for the season and every 3 months the FAI audit you for compliance with the wage cap.

So taking in gates/bars(in some cases) fundraising,donations and sponsors, what way will the FAI base the 65% on as you could do it retrospectivley easily but to audit every 3 months could lead to anomalies and other stuff that Rovers did happening.

Bohs could take this path and claim as they can afford it next year when they get X payment so technically would be above the rules.

Does whats in the "bank" count as turnover as some clubs could be in a situation where they have the wages for the entire year regardless of %.


kdjac

bohsman

As far as I understand it, the yearly payments count as income so are part of turnover. I would imagine this is part of the reason we've asked for annual payments.

DerekD Goldfish

Does whats in the "bank" count as turnover as some clubs could be in a situation where they have the wages for the entire year regardless of %.

No

As far as I understand it, the yearly payments count as income so are part of turnover. I would imagine this is part of the reason we've asked for annual payments.

I cant imagine they would
Boez are a football club not a property developer so nay payments they receive regarding the sale of the propery would be capital rather than revenue id imagine altough Im not completly up to date with the terms of the contract

redspider

I think its good to see some sort of restriction on spending as it levels the playing field so to speak and means clubs dont over-extend themselves. Whether the level set for salary should be 65% is hard to judge. Player purchases also have to be considered, and clubs are now making staged payments over several years (a bit like a mortgaged player!), so its hard to measure a clubs spend.

If a club is spending a lot more on players salary than its current income, then it is currently living beyond its means. The only way to change that is bring in more income. So, gimmick, the best thing to do is to do more fund-raising, maybe more youth teams attached to Cork City, 5x u-7's, 5x u-8's, etc, all the way up to x u-18's is a lot of footbal kit that could be bought through the official club shop, each year. Home and Away kit. Names on backs of shirts (50c a letter, etc). Sponsorship, collections, pub quizes, walks, radio shows,etc. There are ways and means, just limited by our imagination. Support from the community, from the city folk and surrounding towns will drive it. It needs energy though. Other clubs will need to do likewise.

I would also like to see some sort of restrictions brought in for player 'purchases' as well. Financially, a players registration is seen as an 'asset'.

I would also like to see the 65% scaled, to reflect clubs that have lower incomes, so something along the lines of 80% for lower income clubs, 75% for the next band, etc, down to 65% for the clubs. That balancing would help the league be more competitive perhaps.

By the way, I wish Uefa would adopt similar rules for europe so that we woulnt have a Chelski situation.

just some thoughts,

Redspider

Seaneh

Athlone will be alright, might loose 2 or 3 players, but nobody here is on big money anyway, ffs Noel McGee, Brian McCharty, alan Kelly and Des Hope are one less than 200 a week each, and they are a fair portion of the team, I'd say Williamson, Rossiter, Lakotaz, rushe and sherlock wouldnt be on much more either!

We will probably lose Eric Lavinge and Colin fortune (no lose the fat wa*ker!)

DerekD Goldfish

I would also like to see the 65% scaled, to reflect clubs that have lower incomes, so something along the lines of 80% for lower income clubs, 75% for the next band, etc, down to 65% for the clubs. That balancing would help the league be more competitive perhaps.

woulnt allowing a smaller club with smaller income be even more at risk of over spending on wages. 80% is a lot that would leave only 20% for ground maintenence,admin,coaching staff, matchday and traveling exp etc

altough some clubs may currently spend this percentage on wages we soulndt be giving smaller clubs more leway to do this I think

gimmick

redspider wrote:

So, gimmick, the best thing to do is to do more fund-raising,

While i agree, I believe that is over simplifying the matter. Fact is, the majority dont care, and the rest are paying in through the gates every week, buying programmes, merchandise etc. Some, like myself, are season ticket holders, contribute to the FORAS scheme (our supporters trust, just started) and do all the above as well. Many times the club have tried nights at the Dogs, Jazz nights (during the jazz wknd) etc, and they are in genral, met with apathy.

I just wish it was more simple.

redspider

DerekD Goldfish wrote:

woulnt allowing a smaller club with smaller income be even more at risk of over spending on wages. 80% is a lot that would leave only 20% for ground maintenence,admin,coaching staff, matchday and traveling exp etc

altough some clubs may currently spend this percentage on wages we soulndt be giving smaller clubs more leway to do this I think

The problem with a flat system is that the bigger clubs will just keep on winning, and getting bigger and the smaller clubs will just keep on losing and getting smaller. Not guaranteed of course but the trend will happen. Evidence can be seen across all the major leagues in the world.

For Ireland eg: take a club with an income (revenue) of 500k and one with 1 million. How can the 500k compete season in and out with the other? It cant. Over time, the 1m would have more of a chance likely growing its income to 1.2m and the 500k club would reduce to 400k, all things being equal.

Thats why G14 are in favour of a salary cap based on % revenue, especially Man U, as they have such a huge revenue.

Its sort of like positive discrimination. Many sports have it in other ways. In NFL (US Football) and NBA, the teams that do the worst get the pick of the bst players coming through the colleges system. The same in Aussie Rules. Football doesnt have such a system so in lieu of that 'postive discrimination' could be achieved via financials.

Just a thought.

Gimmick, yeah, I realise that you and many 1000's are doing their bit, up and down the country. But the reality is the size of the income/turnover/sponsorship will be directly based on the level of interest.

By the way, has anyone a list of the clubs finances in Ireland, say Income, Profit/Loss in their most recent financial years?

Redspider

KdjaCL

redspider wrote:

By the way, has anyone a list of the clubs finances in Ireland, say Income, Profit/Loss in their most recent financial years?

Redspider

www.cro.ie think it costs to view them tho.


kdjac

Rikand

How will this affect Boardeaux ?

John_C

redspider wrote:

By the way, has anyone a list of the clubs finances in Ireland, say Income, Profit/Loss in their most recent financial years?

STIG did a feature on this a few months ago. I'll be in Drogheda tomorrow but I'll fire it up into the website on Sunday.

redspider

Is this the article you are referring to?
http://stigonline.com/league/league.htm

Töpher

Shels have alot of fringe/reserve players who's contracts are out at the end of this year. Wouldn't be surprised to see many of them left to leave, and their spots filled with some of our U21 talents. We also have the likes of young players such as James Chambers, Gary Deegan, and David Tyrell to come back into the club after loan spells. Their wages would naturally be less than their more senior counterparts.

Darando

Think using a salary cap with a % of turnover is very unfair. It means that a bigger gap wil appear between the clubs. i.e a small club from a lower division gets promoted (having say few fans) will never be able to compete. Why not just a set limit for everyone, i.e a figure not based on club income!

John_C

redspider wrote:

Is this the article you are referring to?
http://stigonline.com/league/league.htm

No, there's a much more detailed one. Sorry about the delay, the webmaster's been giving out to me for posting up .pdf files. It'll hopefully be up soon in .html format.