Argyle not in favour of a salary cap

Keepitgreen · Jul 16, 2020

Plymouth Argyle are against the introduction of strict squad salary costs in the EFL next season.
Argyle chief executive Andrew Parkinson accepts there is a pressing need to address the issue of player wages as football wrestles to deal with the financial fall-out of the COVID-19 crisis.
However, Parkinson would prefer to see stricter enforcement of the current regulations under the Salary Cap Management Protocol (SCMP).
Parkinson said: “First and foremost, I think the finances of the game have to be addressed.
“We want to be a sustainable club – a sustainable club in the Championship at some point – and in order to do that then clearly costs have to match your revenues.
“Some clubs have got wage percentages that are over 100 per cent of their turnover. It just does not stack up as a viable business.”

Makes sense to me.

Herald

Ponty · Jul 16, 2020

Keepitgreen":rwl89chc said:
Plymouth Argyle are against the introduction of strict squad salary costs in the EFL next season.
Argyle chief executive Andrew Parkinson accepts there is a pressing need to address the issue of player wages as football wrestles to deal with the financial fall-out of the COVID-19 crisis.
However, Parkinson would prefer to see stricter enforcement of the current regulations under the Salary Cap Management Protocol (SCMP).
Parkinson said: “First and foremost, I think the finances of the game have to be addressed.
“We want to be a sustainable club – a sustainable club in the Championship at some point – and in order to do that then clearly costs have to match your revenues.
“Some clubs have got wage percentages that are over 100 per cent of their turnover. It just does not stack up as a viable business.”

Makes sense to me.

Herald

I think when we got into trouble in the Championship our wage bill was in the 90+% of our turnover. 94% seems to ring a bell?

DartPilgrim · Jul 16, 2020

Ponty":181p0cax said:
Keepitgreen":181p0cax said:

Plymouth Argyle are against the introduction of strict squad salary costs in the EFL next season.
Argyle chief executive Andrew Parkinson accepts there is a pressing need to address the issue of player wages as football wrestles to deal with the financial fall-out of the COVID-19 crisis.
However, Parkinson would prefer to see stricter enforcement of the current regulations under the Salary Cap Management Protocol (SCMP).
Parkinson said: “First and foremost, I think the finances of the game have to be addressed.
“We want to be a sustainable club – a sustainable club in the Championship at some point – and in order to do that then clearly costs have to match your revenues.
“Some clubs have got wage percentages that are over 100 per cent of their turnover. It just does not stack up as a viable business.”

Makes sense to me.

Herald

Click to expand...

I think when we got into trouble in the Championship our wage bill was in the 90+% of our turnover. 94% seems to ring a bell?

I remember there being a suggestion of us spending around 85% of income at one point. Around the same time a pundit, (I can't remember whether it was on the radio, TV or newspaper) was praising Burnley for how well they were run, spending only 120% of their income

Argylegames · Jul 16, 2020

Sky Sports just reported.
1. Championship clubs to discuss salary cap of £25 million for next season and a limit of 25 players. Extra help for those dropping out of the Premiership with 'players on high salaries'.

2. L1 clubs to discuss salary cap of £2.5 million!

Ponty · Jul 16, 2020

DartingtonPilgrim":3t7c0c8s said:
Ponty":3t7c0c8s said:

Keepitgreen":3t7c0c8s said:

Plymouth Argyle are against the introduction of strict squad salary costs in the EFL next season.
Argyle chief executive Andrew Parkinson accepts there is a pressing need to address the issue of player wages as football wrestles to deal with the financial fall-out of the COVID-19 crisis.
However, Parkinson would prefer to see stricter enforcement of the current regulations under the Salary Cap Management Protocol (SCMP).
Parkinson said: “First and foremost, I think the finances of the game have to be addressed.
“We want to be a sustainable club – a sustainable club in the Championship at some point – and in order to do that then clearly costs have to match your revenues.
“Some clubs have got wage percentages that are over 100 per cent of their turnover. It just does not stack up as a viable business.”

Makes sense to me.

Herald

Click to expand...

I think when we got into trouble in the Championship our wage bill was in the 90+% of our turnover. 94% seems to ring a bell?

Click to expand...

I remember there being a suggestion of us spending around 85% of income at one point. Around the same time a pundit, (I can't remember whether it was on the radio, TV or newspaper) was praising Burnley for how well they were run, spending only 120% of their income

Those figures were from a certain Mr Risdale. Myself and another Pasoti member had a meeting with him before a home game.

The mess he said we were in frightened the life out of me.

I believe he saved us from going out of business at the time.

Keepitgreen · Jul 16, 2020

Argylegames":1l7knuam said:
Sky Sports just reported.
1. Championship clubs to discuss salary cap of £25 million for next season and a limit of 25 players. Extra help for those dropping out of the Premiership with 'players on high salaries'.

2. L1 clubs to discuss salary cap of £2.5 million!

I assume that's so they don't lose the parachute payments. :crazy: :crazy:

Meerkat Man · Jul 16, 2020

I’m all for sustainability but it seems crazy that every club in each division regardless of attendances and turnover should have the same budget. If Sunderland and Portsmouth have the same budget as Accrington and that budget is set at approximately the average of a League 1 club, how do Accrington make up the shortfall and what do Sunderland and Portsmouth do with their excess? Yes, some of it could be used to improve their stadiums or training facilities, etc, but why shouldn’t they be able to use their extra resources to strengthen their squads (without exceeding the current percentage wage limit)?

I think Argyle are right to oppose this and I’m sure most of the bigger clubs in each division will as well. The current regulations should be sufficient if rigorously enforced.

No one would expect Bournemouth to be on a level playing field with Manchester City.

HC Green · Jul 16, 2020

Meerkat Man":1wmvdwo6 said:
I’m all for sustainability but it seems crazy that every club in each division regardless of attendances and turnover should have the same budget. If Sunderland and Portsmouth have the same budget as Accrington and that budget is set at approximately the average of a League 1 club, how do Accrington make up the shortfall and what do Sunderland and Portsmouth do with their excess? Yes, some of it could be used to improve their stadiums or training facilities, etc, but why shouldn’t they be able to use their extra resources to strengthen their squads (without exceeding the current percentage wage limit)?

I think Argyle are right to oppose this and I’m sure most of the bigger clubs in each division will as well. The current regulations should be sufficient if rigorously enforced.

No one would expect Bournemouth to be on a level playing field with Manchester City.

I wouldn’t expect Accrington to spend anywhere near the proposed £2.5m limit.

Argylegames · Jul 16, 2020

Meerkat Man":28erkhrk said:
I’m all for sustainability but it seems crazy that every club in each division regardless of attendances and turnover should have the same budget.

It is the same maximum budget.

davie nine · Jul 16, 2020

It does seem unreasonable that SH has invested so much in our club so that we can generate income every day of the week, instead of once a fortnight, and also during the closed season.

We can now, theoretically at least, afford, subject to sustainability, spend more than many of our competitors (opponents) so why should we have to comply with a fixed salary cap?

Why should Portsmouth and Sunderland be expected to spend the same amount on salaries as Accrington or Rochdale?

Surely, the level of control should be related to SUSTAINABILITY.

Argylegames · Jul 16, 2020

davie nine":gv2uw3e4 said:
Why should Portsmouth and Sunderland be expected to spend the same amount on salaries as Accrington or Rochdale?

.

They aren't, the figure is a maximum. Nobody would expect Rochdale to be paying £2.5 million in player salaries, but it would stop Sunderland paying £2.5 million to one player.

Knibbsworth · Jul 16, 2020

Argylegames":2szd7ijb said:
davie nine":2szd7ijb said:

Why should Portsmouth and Sunderland be expected to spend the same amount on salaries as Accrington or Rochdale?

.

Click to expand...

They aren't, the figure is a maximum. Nobody would expect Rochdale to be paying £2.5 million in player salaries, but it would stop Sunderland paying £2.5 million to one player.

But still, Oxford could probably afford the maximum on their gates on a fraction of Sunderland's attendances, and yet they both have the same playing budget?

The bigger clubs will argue that something proportional to gates or income is fairer.

davie nine · Jul 16, 2020

Argylegames":159e55w5 said:
davie nine":159e55w5 said:

Why should Portsmouth and Sunderland be expected to spend the same amount on salaries as Accrington or Rochdale?

.

Click to expand...

They aren't, the figure is a maximum. Nobody would expect Rochdale to be paying £2.5 million in player salaries, but it would stop Sunderland paying £2.5 million to one player.

They should still have to prove SUSTAINABILITY.
Why did you pick just one sentence from my post?

WoodsyGreen · Jul 17, 2020

So if Salford get promoted next season they can spend still spend far in excess of their organic turnover. The same amount as proper clubs like Sunderland and Portsmouth, in fact.

What exactly is this cap supposed to achieve?

You really do have to be a complete dunderhead not to see that capping it to a percentage of football turnover is the only way to stop clubs over-reaching.

stewthenoo · Jul 17, 2020

Keepitgreen":36iwfxbk said:
Argylegames":36iwfxbk said:

Sky Sports just reported.
1. Championship clubs to discuss salary cap of £25 million for next season and a limit of 25 players. Extra help for those dropping out of the Premiership with 'players on high salaries'.

2. L1 clubs to discuss salary cap of £2.5 million!

Click to expand...

I assume that's so they don't lose the parachute payments. :crazy: :crazy:

This is the problem for me. Ridiculous amounts of money sloshing around in the Premiership and feeding down to the Championship (TV money now adding to the Championship slosh fund). What comes from that is increased wages for those in the lower leagues whilst fans have to fund those increases. Disproportionate amount of money comes down to the lower leagues.

By all means introduce salary caps, but this has to be from the Premiership down. STOP the parachute payments - players will need to accept that their wages will not remain the same if they drop a league (perhaps that will give more an incentive to play better and not rely on "easy money" if they are relegated.

Argyle not in favour of a salary cap

Keepitgreen

Ponty

English and proud of it

DartPilgrim

Argylegames

Administrator

Ponty

English and proud of it

Keepitgreen

Meerkat Man

HC Green

Argylegames

Administrator

davie nine

Argylegames

Administrator

Knibbsworth

davie nine

WoodsyGreen

stewthenoo