Printable View
Instead of all that (or maybe on top of it) the FAI should target the problem directly. Put a transfer ban on the club to stop them signing any players and allow all the players they have to leave as free agents. It'll get the wage budget back below 65% in no time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Ideally, do this during the mid-season transfer window.
agreed but can youn assess a clubs finances midway through the season or do you wait to see the audited accounts
just being reading some information on this and i think the budget will be assessed by licensing before a season begins loking at previous returns if clubs wish to increase this they must show cause.
And there's always a risk that this sort of regulation could just force a lot of payments under the table. In my opinion that sort of practice should carry very serious penalties for any club caught doing so.
If the club has a low profit margin, it's there business to address. They should look at ways to cut expenses. After all, you don't have to fill the wage cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
Calculating their average income from attendances, season tickets, merchandise, sponsorships, etc. over the last, say, 3 seasons, and then finding the average income for every season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
After that, find out the variant in income was for every season, say it's 0% for the first season, it went down 10% for the second season and then rose by 15% in the third season. It might give an idea of how income is related to the teams on the pitch performance.
After all that some sort of projected budget could be drawn up and then it should be underestimated by a fair percentage, for safety's sake.
My point is that if a club has an income of 1 million, say, it could spend 650k on wages. But if the club buys a pub which has an income of 1 million and spends 900k on its expenses, can the club claim an income of 2 million allowing it to spend as much as they want on wages or is its income 1.1 million allowing it to spend 715k on wages? It's a technical point but could make a big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
I think if the pub were located inside the clubs grounds, they should claim it as part of their assets but if it's just a pub they bought for the sake of it with no intention of making it a club pub or with any association with the club apart from the ownership, I don't think it should.
It'd be like owning a very succesful racehorse in the clubs name. The horse could win loadsa races and make a lot of money for them but it's income that's got nothing to do with the club and if the horse died or got injured they'd lose all that income.
That's a bit hard to specify in the rules though!
Strange logic. All they have to do is advertise the pub as being owned by the club and they can say its the official pub for the club's fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
Yeah I know and who's to say it's not. It'd be very tough to prove that the pub's income is or isn't generated by fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Ok, then no such pub's income should be included as turnover. If they want a pub like that, they can open a bar in their clubhouse or grounds and have open to ticket holders only and only on matchdays, etc.
So now you're advocating clubs making less money? :eek::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
Point I'm making is what difference does it make how the club makes the money? If a club runs a golf day, the money comes from outsiders. If they run a quiz night and raise €500, should the €250 that came from supporters be the only bit that counts towards this mythical turnover figure?
Fair enough, it doesn't really matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
I guess personally I'd rather clubs focus on making their money through their fans.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
I'd much rather Pats made their money every way they possible could, and didn't have to depend on the fans.
Loyalty is a big deal to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Whats that got to do with the club making money? How can the club owning a pub or a racehorse (in your example) effect the club's attitude towards you.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
I realise my personal feelings don't matter in the world of business. I'm still young so I'm an idealist and ideally any club would be self-sufficient on the support of it's fans. Personally, I think clubs are pimping or selling themselves with sponsors or events even thought they do benefit the club. It's a personal moral dilemma.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Off topic I know, but you're not trying very hard if you're losing a million a year? (Genuine confusion, not WUMming...)
Anyways, how does the system work in England, does anyone know? And does it actually do any good?
I think the FAI should have started at say 80% & work the way down to 65% over maybe 2 years. I think 65% overnight change may be too much for a lot of clubs.thly
The only way this could be policed if via monthly submission of accounts.
Clubs already submit monthly accounts for licensing as far as I know.Quote:
The only way this could be policed if via monthly submission of accounts.
We all know how well that has worked..Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A