| £2500 a week 10:43 - Jan 1 with 5213 views | chrismakin |
That doesn't get you much of a player does it?
There are players in the conference on just under 1k a week, [Post edited 1 Jan 2021 10:46]
|  |
| |  |
| £2500 a week on 20:46 - Jan 1 with 982 views | BtreeBlueBlood |
| £2500 a week on 14:12 - Jan 1 by Radlett_blue |
Indeed. Town have now reached such depths that becoming a Rotherham-type yo-yo club between the 2nd & 3rd tiers seems the best possible outcome. |
Maybe worse and not one of the yo yo clubs! |  | | |
| £2500 a week on 21:38 - Jan 1 with 946 views | jayessess |
| £2500 a week on 19:57 - Jan 1 by Durovigutum |
It will go onto the P60. The old fashioned car sponsorship by the local garage is an interesting question - then player pays the BIK but it's not a club expense.... |
If we're still in League One, I doubt perks will be an issue. By the time we've maxed out the £2.5m on wages for over 21s, a bit more for the first team under 21s, wages for a couple of U21 loanees, paid for the academy, paid for other running costs, we'll probably have used up most of our revenues anyway. Especially if Lambert's still the boss and we're looking at record low season ticket sales. [Post edited 1 Jan 2021 21:44]
|  |
| |
| £2500 a week on 21:48 - Jan 1 with 933 views | AlanG296 |
On the assumption that we have players paid more than that at the moment, would anyone say that they are "much of a player"? Assuming the likes of Accrington will be within the cap, are some of our players worth more? The Premier League and its clubs generate the revenue to pay their players. The Football League does not and relies on owners to "invest" and handouts from above to subsidise wages. The only beneficiaries are the players too many of whom are paid more money than they earn. It's not sustainable. Neither are 5 national divisions with full time clubs, even in the 5th level. No comparable country has anything like it. Even without covid, the current model for football leagues outside the top level will not survive. |  | | |
| £2500 a week on 21:58 - Jan 1 with 935 views | jayessess |
| £2500 a week on 21:48 - Jan 1 by AlanG296 |
On the assumption that we have players paid more than that at the moment, would anyone say that they are "much of a player"? Assuming the likes of Accrington will be within the cap, are some of our players worth more? The Premier League and its clubs generate the revenue to pay their players. The Football League does not and relies on owners to "invest" and handouts from above to subsidise wages. The only beneficiaries are the players too many of whom are paid more money than they earn. It's not sustainable. Neither are 5 national divisions with full time clubs, even in the 5th level. No comparable country has anything like it. Even without covid, the current model for football leagues outside the top level will not survive. |
Sorry, no. In normal times all 92 league clubs, plus a bunch of non-league ones, generate enough revenue from gate receipts to pay 20 full-time footballers. Absolutely no reason why the current football league model can't be made sustainable.
The reason Germany, Spain, France, Italy etc. don't have 4+ professional leagues is because no one watches lower league football. Not the case in England. | |
| |
| £2500 a week on 22:32 - Jan 1 with 908 views | AlanG296 |
| £2500 a week on 21:58 - Jan 1 by jayessess |
Sorry, no. In normal times all 92 league clubs, plus a bunch of non-league ones, generate enough revenue from gate receipts to pay 20 full-time footballers. Absolutely no reason why the current football league model can't be made sustainable.
The reason Germany, Spain, France, Italy etc. don't have 4+ professional leagues is because no one watches lower league football. Not the case in England. |
Only 20 full time players per club wouldn't go far in 2019 let alone now. ITFC is only being sustained by owner covering losses with debt. And it's far from the only club doing that. Rich men buying football clubs as an ego trip has been good for players and their agents, but rarely good for fans. I blame Jack Walker. | | | |
| £2500 a week on 22:33 - Jan 1 with 917 views | Churchman |
| £2500 a week on 12:14 - Jan 1 by jeera |
I meant if all you can is the likes of me then you're right, we're stuffed.
But yes, it's nowhere near enough.
Although I am in favour of some grading system when it comes to wages attached to the various divisions, it has to be more realistic than that. |
It’ll be more than enough for Evans. He will be laughing his head off and rolling out the excuses he made when adhering to FFP. ‘Don’t blame me, we are restricted by the system’, blah blah blah. He will be over the moon. |  | | |
| £2500 a week on 00:05 - Jan 2 with 898 views | BcarefulwhatUWish4 |
Think this is the most important season for us in decades. We need to get back up to the Championship...and fast. Or else the decline will continue and I don't think it'll be gradual. |  | | |
| £2500 a week on 09:21 - Jan 2 with 844 views | Radlett_blue |
| £2500 a week on 21:58 - Jan 1 by jayessess |
Sorry, no. In normal times all 92 league clubs, plus a bunch of non-league ones, generate enough revenue from gate receipts to pay 20 full-time footballers. Absolutely no reason why the current football league model can't be made sustainable.
The reason Germany, Spain, France, Italy etc. don't have 4+ professional leagues is because no one watches lower league football. Not the case in England. |
They don't. Almost all of the Football League clubs (plus the National League) lose money & continue to operate because their owners are willing to fund the difference or take on debt.
England is the only country which tries to sustain 5 divisions of clubs employing squads of full time footballers. In almost every other country, everything below the top 2 tiers is regionalised and/or part time. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| £2500 a week on 11:50 - Jan 2 with 824 views | skinnybob72 |
Is there a cap in squad size as well as the wage cap? In other words do all teams in League 1 have the same overall salary budget? | | | |
| £2500 a week on 15:56 - Jan 2 with 795 views | jayessess |
| £2500 a week on 22:32 - Jan 1 by AlanG296 |
Only 20 full time players per club wouldn't go far in 2019 let alone now. ITFC is only being sustained by owner covering losses with debt. And it's far from the only club doing that. Rich men buying football clubs as an ego trip has been good for players and their agents, but rarely good for fans. I blame Jack Walker. |
ITFC's revenues are more than enough to run a full-time professional football club. Historically we've spent more than that because football is a competitive business and clubs max out their spending on playing staff to compete with each other.
Stockport County in the Conference play in front of 4000 or so fans every week. They make enough money to pay their players a full-time salary. Why shouldn't they continue to be a full-time professional team? | |
| |
| £2500 a week on 16:01 - Jan 2 with 791 views | jayessess |
| £2500 a week on 09:21 - Jan 2 by Radlett_blue |
They don't. Almost all of the Football League clubs (plus the National League) lose money & continue to operate because their owners are willing to fund the difference or take on debt.
England is the only country which tries to sustain 5 divisions of clubs employing squads of full time footballers. In almost every other country, everything below the top 2 tiers is regionalised and/or part time. |
Almost every professional football club, from PSG to Manchester City to Stockport Country, is run at a loss. But that doesn't mean they don't make enough money to run a professional football club per se, it just means they're incentivised to spend money they don't have to compete.
The average revenue of a League 2 club is £3.8m a year. 20 x UK average salary is £800k. Why would a football club with that kind of revenue go part time?
England is the only country that sustains 5 divisions of clubs employing squads of full time footballers because... it's the only country that has an audience for 5 divisions of clubs. More people go to watch Bradford City in League 2 than go to watch three quarters of the teams in La Segunda. [Post edited 2 Jan 2021 16:17]
| |
| |
| £2500 a week on 16:01 - Jan 2 with 791 views | DinnernotTea |
It's a £130,000 a year job to play in the third tier and generally not be very good at football. And not have to work 40 hours a week.
I think it's more than fair. | |
| Beware of The Ipswich Cabbages
|
| |
| £2500 a week on 16:59 - Jan 2 with 772 views | tractorboy1978 |
| £2500 a week on 11:50 - Jan 2 by skinnybob72 |
Is there a cap in squad size as well as the wage cap? In other words do all teams in League 1 have the same overall salary budget? |
All L1 clubs have a salary cap of £2.5m per year. It's not linked to turnover which is frankly ridiculous when it is a billed as improving 'sustainability'. | | | |
| £2500 a week on 17:54 - Jan 2 with 757 views | Radlett_blue |
| £2500 a week on 16:01 - Jan 2 by jayessess |
Almost every professional football club, from PSG to Manchester City to Stockport Country, is run at a loss. But that doesn't mean they don't make enough money to run a professional football club per se, it just means they're incentivised to spend money they don't have to compete.
The average revenue of a League 2 club is £3.8m a year. 20 x UK average salary is £800k. Why would a football club with that kind of revenue go part time?
England is the only country that sustains 5 divisions of clubs employing squads of full time footballers because... it's the only country that has an audience for 5 divisions of clubs. More people go to watch Bradford City in League 2 than go to watch three quarters of the teams in La Segunda. [Post edited 2 Jan 2021 16:17]
|
Yes, they all lose money because if you run a club sustainably, it slowly slides down the divisions as other owners are prepared to lose money. Only sustainable if new owners keep popping up to pick up the pieces after the occasional administration. | |
| |
| £2500 a week on 09:45 - Jan 3 with 652 views | jayessess |
| £2500 a week on 17:54 - Jan 2 by Radlett_blue |
Yes, they all lose money because if you run a club sustainably, it slowly slides down the divisions as other owners are prepared to lose money. Only sustainable if new owners keep popping up to pick up the pieces after the occasional administration. |
That's just it, though. It's not the league structure or 92+ pro clubs that's unsustainable, it's the specific way in which finances are organised and regulated across those clubs.
I can't see the value in blithely writing off dozens of communities' football teams just because we can't be bothered to fix the rules to keep them safe. [Post edited 3 Jan 2021 10:52]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
