Liverpool FC Forum

by **Reg** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:28 pm

Clubs to learn salary restrictions - Monday, 9 February 2009

Chelsea spend 71 per cent of their income on salaries

Clubs competing in the Champions League will learn tomorrow if they are to face stringent restrictions on spending on wages.

The European Clubs' Association (ECA) are meeting in Geneva where they are expected to come up with proposals to limit the proportion of a club's income that they can spend on salaries.

Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, the chairman of Bayern Munich who heads the new clubs' body, is pushing for a 50 per cent limit of turnover going on wages.

Among English clubs, Chelsea would have the most to fear from such a ruling - they spend 71 per cent of their turnover on salaries. Liverpool, according to the most recent figures available from 2006, would also be affected with 57 per cent of turnover going on salaries.

Manchester United would have least to fear - they have made a policy of prudent spending on wages, and their current level is 43.6 per cent. Arsenal's proportion is also comparatively low at 45.4 per cent, although this rises to 49 per cent if the income from property sales at the old Highbury stadium is discounted.

Rummenigge said of his plan: "The 32 participants [in the Champions League] would have to meet certain conditions. Only 50% of the club's total revenues could be invested in wages."

Chelsea chief executive Peter Kenyon is on the ECA board, as is his Liverpool counterpart Rick Parry, and they are likely to argue for a less drastic limit such as 60 per cent or even an initial 70 per cent with clubs being given several years to cut their wage bills.

A 50 per cent ruling would not trouble the Old Firm in Scotland too much - Rangers only spend 43 per cent of turnover on wages, while Celtic's figure is a less comfortable but still acceptable 50 per cent.

Rangers vice-chairman John McClelland is also on the ECA board.

UEFA president Michel Platini is keen on imposing limits and he has already met with Rummenigge for talks on action.

Speaking in London last week, Platini used Manchester City's £100m bid to sign Kaka as an example of why some restraints were needed.

Platini said: "Clubs have to operate within their income.

"How one guy can cost 150million euro is ridiculous from a social, football and financial point of view.

"It's why we have to do something to have a transparency and a fairness in football. It's not good for the popularity of football."

by **das20093** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:36 pm

by **tubby** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:42 pm

Anyone know how much we spend? I can't imagine it's any more than Arsenal. Anyway it's a good idea. Next should be transfer fee caps so that teams like Cheslea and Man City don't ruin it for everyone. Infact they should have started with that first.

by **SupitsJonF** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:11 pm

I like the idea, players will play for heart not money. I think this will affect other clubs more then it will us, since we have no money anyways. Although we will need to cut a lot of unneeded players from our reserves.

by **LegBarnes** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:11 pm

Thats all good but it will just let the best clubs stay at the top as they make more money and smaller clubs won't be able to boost there teams to compete.

In fact it turn football into more of a greed fest as clubs will have to charge more for ticket prices to make that little extra cash to bring in better players.

I think its good idea but not a practical way to stop the problems.

Only way I can see it happening is if they grade players and limit them in a team IE. you can only have 3 top players in a team and rest have to be lower grades.

IE like barca you say they have 3 top players rest have to lower lvl and so on.

Or clubs like the mancs will have massive turn over and be able to have all the best players in world.

by **Well Red** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:26 pm

LegBarnes wrote:Only way I can see it happening is if they grade players and limit them in a team IE. you can only have 3 top players in a team and rest have to be lower grades.

IE like barca you say they have 3 top players rest have to lower lvl and so on.

it would be impossible to bracket players like that, but it would surely be feasible to introduce a rule whereby only a certain amount of Internationals would be allowed in a team's 25 man squad.

This system is also without its problems, but it's more managable. :upside:

by **JoeTerp** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:03 pm

what would make people think that clubs are not already trying to milk fans for every penny? I don't see how that rule would change anything. This type of salary cap, where it is tied to revenue would be good for Liverpool because it would protect us from the likes of Citeh and Chelsea. Also, it would not be healthy for a club like Fulham to try and spend such a high percentage of its revenue on players because if the club ever went down they could be in deep financial trouble.

by **LegBarnes** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:26 pm

JoeTerp wrote:what would make people think that clubs are not already trying to milk fans for every penny? I don't see how that rule would change anything. This type of salary cap, where it is tied to revenue would be good for Liverpool because it would protect us from the likes of Citeh and Chelsea. Also, it would not be healthy for a club like Fulham to try and spend such a high percentage of its revenue on players because if the club ever went down they could be in deep financial trouble.

Yes but the mancs would just win prem every year almost like they do now how is that improvement ?

by **LegBarnes** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:27 pm

Well Red wrote:
LegBarnes wrote:Only way I can see it happening is if they grade players and limit them in a team IE. you can only have 3 top players in a team and rest have to be lower grades.

IE like barca you say they have 3 top players rest have to lower lvl and so on.

it would be impossible to bracket players like that, but it would surely be feasible to introduce a rule whereby only a certain amount of Internationals would be allowed in a team's 25 man squad.

This system is also without its problems, but it's more managable.

Yeah well I didn't put to much thought into it really but I think it just shows that uafas idea is same not much thought !

by **yolz** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:58 am

The idea of introducing salary caps isn't a new one, and as with all new measures, will have it's advantages and disadvantages
Look at the US. They have salary caps for just about every popular sport there, american football, basketball, Ice hockey, etc
But then again, what the Americans claim to be their number one sport, baseball, doesn't have a salary cap
The main reason is that while it's possible for basketball and american football teams to operate on salary caps due to the high turn over of players and also the shorter season for american football, it just wouldn't be possible for baseball.
It's the most popular sport in the US, and there are team followings that go way back
IMHO, it's the sme for football.
If the americans think baseball has been around too long to change anything, what more football?
It's the most popular sport around the WORLD!
How much a team spends, and how they manage their finances is entirely their responsibility
Look at Leeds, in a major European FInal one day, down the gutters the next
If a team does not know how to balance the books and think long term, they just won't be around for long
THe premier league is now being enjoyed throughout the world, and fans deserve the best teams
And the best teams aren't just the ones that play good football, they are the clubs that manage their finances well and look to create a club that will stand the test of time

by **JoeTerp** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:31 am

baseball has a luxury tax instead of a cap, and one of the main reasons why it doesn't have a cap is that the baseball players union is one of the strongest man for man in the country.

We don't claim that baseball is our number one sport either. Its our national pastime. American football is by far the number 1 sport.

The main reason why we can have salary caps is that we have franchise systems. We have a set number of teams in the first division and we don't have any lower divisions that can earn promotion. Its the same owners and teams every year, no matter how bad the worst team is. These owners get together and have meetings and say hey, what are we all beating each other up for, when we can all come together like gentlemen and agree not to spend over a certain dollar amount so that we can all make money. The players usually have little power because either they agree to accept the salary cap or they do not play at all because they have no other options of playing in other leagues in other countries. And that is the main reason why it is unlikely to see an American style cap in footie, because the players could always go and play somewhere else since football is a global sport.

what is being proposed is not really a salary cap in the American sense. It would be probably less restrictive than even baseball which forces the big clubs who spend more than a certain raw dollar amount to pay dollar for dollar over that amount to a pool that is split amongst the poorer clubs. All this proposed system would do would be to force clubs to act responsibly. It is of no fault to the fans of Leeds United that their ownership group screwed the club over

by **SupitsJonF** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:55 am

The lineup would not be vidic, ferdinand, evra, giggs, ronaldo, tevez, rooney, berbatov, VDS, without some people taking a pay cut. Which would be nice.

by **Judge** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:10 pm

by **bigmick** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:01 pm

Well once again it's three out of four English clubs in the semi-finals. Chelsea have reached the semi's for the fifth time in six seasons, we smash Real Madrid 5-0 and the same final as last season looks a distinct possibility. I've long been an advocate of salary caps, although I wouldn't do it as a percentage of income as I don't think it sufficiently levels the playing field. I'd limit the total budget for salaries, set it at 30 million per annum and also limit the number of players a team can pick from (squad size).

Both changes IMHO are very long overdue in football, and if the governing bodies wait until there is an inevitable tail-off in supporter interest due to the whole thing being too predictable, they are scandalously inept in their roles. And predictable it is, search back two years and you'll see some of us on these boards were onto it many moons ago. You don't have to be Einstein to work out which way the wind is blowing, and similarly in the Premiership only the relative collapse of the big clubs gives everyone else a chance at some crumbs.

Unlike most everyone else on the boards, I think Arsenal have more chance of rolling over Man Utd that Barcelona do of beating Chelsea. My suspicion is though that neither eventuality will come to pass, and we'll be into a Chelsea Man Utd final once again. With their victory this morning and the return of Ferdinand, the spectre of a "quintuplet" looms ever larger. Hopefully they can continue to wobble in the league and we can capitalise, but like Chelsea Arsenal are begining to look like a football team again. They will go to Anfield next week as a team which is emerging from the doldrums, having just spanked Villareal 3-0 and being unbeaten for a while in the league. Failure to win that one and the Mancs will already be ticking another box. It doesn't even bare thinking about.

by **tubby** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:35 pm

Villareal were already suffering from the loss of Cazorla. Losing Senna was another massive blow. But I think it will be Arsenal Barca in the final. Arsenal should have no trouble getting 4th spot now so I think they will prioritise the CL somewhat now.

Liverpool FC Forum

Salary caps ? - Platini again.........

Who is online