PFAI denounce salary cap plans

[A face]

PFAI denounce salary cap plans


Professional Footballers Association of Ireland chief Fran Gavin has denounced plans to introduce a salary cap on eircom League clubs, insisting that players should be prevented from earning a decent living in a booming economy such as Ireland’s.

Rigorously monitored salary controls – similar to those successfully implemented in England’s Conference in recent seasons – were one of a number of radical recommendations offered up by the Genesis report into domestic soccer, published this week.

Read more at www.eleven-a-side.com (http://www.eleven-a-side.com/offthefield/irish_soccer_detail.asp?newsid=19306)

[Roverstillidie]

insisting that players should be prevented from earning a decent living in a booming economy such as Ireland’s.



wtf? :confused:

[thejollyrodger]

insisting that players should be prevented from earning a decent living in a booming economy such as Ireland’s.

They cant link a booming economy to a run down league with clubs who have no money. Needs a bit of realism to be fair.

[OneRedArmy]

in other news, turkeys vote to ban Christmas..................

[Mr_T]

.....Mr Gavin added, if Irish clubs are stupid enough to pay average players three times what they are being offered to play in League 1 and 2 in the UK why should the FAI stop our members from taking them to the cleaners!!

[MariborKev]

My only surprise at the PFAI rejection of the salary cap is that it took them so long to issue a statement.

[Mr A]

You know footballers Kev, they probably had to have all their top men working on it to manage to put it out so fast!

[bigmac]

...Mr Gavin then went on to say that the ludicrous notion of clubs only paying a percentage of income out on wages could never have a place in Irish soccer and that he would shortly be calling on all clubs to increase their wages bill to a minimum of 110% of their income.

[Mr_T]

he would shortly be calling on all clubs to increase their wages bill to a minimum of 110% of their income.


This would be a reduction for some clubs I'd say!

[Ronnie]

Is it too obvious to state that players wages are the single biggest problem in the league?

[pete]

Is it too obvious to state that players wages are the single biggest problem in the league?

Its the single biggest cost to all clubs. In all reality there are few players that have foreign clubs queueing up to sign them. Certainly some of the figures Shels players are rumoured to be on would beat many Football League Championship clubs.

[Ronnie]

Is it too obvious to state that players wages are the single biggest problem in the league?

[thejollyrodger]

Wages are a problem but as someone on newstalk 106 said last night its not as straightforward as it seems.

Some clubs may be able to pay their players much more than 65% of their turnover, other clubs would be bankrupt tomorrow if they tried to meet 65%.

What the FAIlure has to do is, means test each club financially. Depending on how they meet certain standards then they should be allowed to spend X amount of money on players accordingly.

For example, say a club has a very good 10,000 all seater stadium with a proper youth academy and training facilites and still have a right bit of money over. Shouldnt they be allowed to spend more money than a club who has a run down stadium with one stand and huge debts.

Each club has to properly show its income and outcome on its books and a percentage of how much a club is allowed to spend based on that. I know it will be tricky to get all the clubs to do this but if the Revenue is after them they should do everything by the books.

Plus the FAIlure can introduce large fines and relegation from the new A league (or whatever its going to be called) if they are found out to have been paying players more than they are allowed.

[trevy]

The old phrase 'they would say that wouldn't they' comes to mind.Players cannot expect to be paid huge wages if the fans aren't going to the grounds to watch them.

[manic da hoop]

For example, say a club has a very good 10,000 all seater stadium with a proper youth academy and training facilites and still have a right bit of money over. Shouldnt they be allowed to spend more money than a club who has a run down stadium with one stand and huge debts.

The likelyhood would be that 65% of the finances of the club in question in your above example would be considerably more than 65% of the finances of the club with the run-down stadium. The fact that the limit would be set at a percentage as opposed to a specific figure (say e500,000) would mean than the amount that clubs would be allowed to spend would automatically be reletive to their financial well-being.

[Bald Student]

What about if this was tied into the UEFA licence (remember that?). A club whose ground doesn't meet the standard is not relegated but is required to put, say, 20% of turnover into a capital fund to pay for redevelopment.

[pete]

What the FAIlure has to do is, means test each club financially. Depending on how they meet certain standards then they should be allowed to spend X amount of money on players accordingly.


So one rule for some & different rule for others.

Wage restrictions based on turnover are obvious. 65% might be ambitious to start with but could even start at 90% & move down to 80% & 70% each year.

Even eL clubs that don't make loses spend virtually every penny they have on wages. Restrictions would force clubs to plan properly through licencing regulations.

[CollegeTillIDie]

My only question to Fran Gavin and the PFAI is this...

How will his members feel if in a few years there are only 16 professional or semi-professional clubs operating in the EL the others having gone bust?

Surely if you take their position to it's logical conclusion..... less jobs for the boys is better than less wages....?:confused:

[bigmac]

The likelyhood would be that 65% of the finances of the club in question in your above example would be considerably more than 65% of the finances of the club with the run-down stadium. The fact that the limit would be set at a percentage as opposed to a specific figure (say e500,000) would mean than the amount that clubs would be allowed to spend would automatically be reletive to their financial well-being.

I definitely think that a percentage is the way to go alright. I think Jolly Rodger's point was that a club who has no stadium or infrastructure should be forced to invest a certain percentage in development whereas a club that already has everything in place could be allowed to spend a greater percentage on wages. Personally i'm not sure if this is workable and I think a blanket percentage across the board would be a good idea, and also eliminate the situation where outside investors can directly pay a player's wages and bypass the club structure.

[thejollyrodger]

So one rule for some & different rule for others.

Wage restrictions based on turnover are obvious. 65% might be ambitious to start with but could even start at 90% & move down to 80% & 70% each year.

Even eL clubs that don't make loses spend virtually every penny they have on wages. Restrictions would force clubs to plan properly through licencing regulations.

No, one rule for everyone.

My point is that some clubs may be better off that other clubs when it comes to facilities and underage setups. Why cant they spend more money on wages that other clubs who have crap facilities and crap underage setups.

Each club should be properly tested to see how they fair with their facilities and then the FAI should say how much they can spend on players wages each year.

[pete]

No, one rule for everyone.
My point is that some clubs may be better off that other clubs when it comes to facilities and underage setups. Why cant they spend more money on wages that other clubs who have crap facilities and crap underage setups.


I disagree i still see that as different rules. Clubs cannot be allowed to spend 100%+ of turnover on wages so need rules to be enforced. Not many clubs spend any money on infrastructure as most of that money comes from grants.

[Mr A]

I think pete that clubs usually have to match some percentage of grant money with funds of their own. Certainly grants Harps got in the past had to be matched punt for punt with money of our own, but I think recent grants may have had smaller percentages attached to them.