Dolan- 'Wage Cap is Stupid"

**Bald Student** · 07/09/2007, 2:27 PM

Originally Posted by Mr A

Personally I think there should be a scale of punishments from fines or points deductions for minor infractions to relegation to the complete withdrawal of a club's license for repeated infringements.

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.

Ideally, do this during the mid-season transfer window.

**passerrby** · 07/09/2007, 2:29 PM

agreed but can youn assess a clubs finances midway through the season or do you wait to see the audited accounts

**passerrby** · 07/09/2007, 2:36 PM

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.

**Mr A** · 07/09/2007, 2:37 PM

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.

**superfrank** · 07/09/2007, 2:38 PM

Originally Posted by Schumi

The most basic is what counts as turnover. Would a high turnover, low profit addition to the a club (e.g. a pub) allow a club to spend loads of money on wages?

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.

Originally Posted by Schumi

Secondly when would a club's turnover be calculated? If it's after the season, a bad season and subsequent loss of crowds could leave a club having wage commitments above 65% of their turnover through no real fault of theirs. If the turnover figure is calculated before the season, is it based on a projected budget?

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.

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.

**Schumi** · 07/09/2007, 2:44 PM

Originally Posted by superfrank

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.

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.

**superfrank** · 07/09/2007, 2:51 PM

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.

**Schumi** · 07/09/2007, 2:54 PM

That's a bit hard to specify in the rules though!

**Dodge** · 07/09/2007, 2:55 PM

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.

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.

**superfrank** · 07/09/2007, 3:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

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.

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.

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.

**Dodge** · 07/09/2007, 3:08 PM

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.

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?

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?

**superfrank** · 07/09/2007, 3:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

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.

I guess personally I'd rather clubs focus on making their money through their fans.

**Dodge** · 07/09/2007, 3:12 PM

Originally Posted by superfrank

I guess personally I'd rather clubs focus on making their money through their fans.

Why?

I'd much rather Pats made their money every way they possible could, and didn't have to depend on the fans.

**superfrank** · 07/09/2007, 3:23 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Why?

Loyalty is a big deal to me.

**Dodge** · 07/09/2007, 3:28 PM

Originally Posted by superfrank

Loyalty is a big deal to me.

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.

**superfrank** · 07/09/2007, 3:36 PM

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.

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.

**pineapple stu** · 07/09/2007, 6:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

I thought he might. We're still trying to pay off the debts from his last squad of 40+ players

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?

**pete** · 07/09/2007, 9:45 PM

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.