Season 2011-12 Fan Articles
It Works With Horses?
By Jimmy Stenn :: 28/09/2011
65 Comments (»Last)
Ever since Sky started paying millions and millions to Premier League clubs, the teams who have earned the most have consistently finished higher. They then used this extra money to buy better players from abroad, and also cherry pick the best talent from the teams below. They were able to use this extra money to improve their stadiums, increase capacity and have more corporate facilities, all of which made their income swell.
Because of the TV deals signed over the last 20 years, English football is the most watched sport globally, meaning those teams at the top, who were shown more often than the others, gained new fans, who in turn buy the clubs merchandise, and due to the number of fans abroad, give clubs the opportunity for money spinning pre-season tours.
Every year, the gap between the richer and poorer widens; every year, the prize money for the Champions League increases. The only way to get to the top is have a rich businessman take over, spend millions on players to try and catch up, all the while causing the true value of players to be skewed, meaning poorer clubs fall even further behind as they are not able to pay the now inflated prices.
Success in football these days is no longer measured by trophies won; it is how much you make, how much you are worth, how much you own. Winning is a by-product of all of these things. Qualifying for the Champions League group stages is all that the top European teams aim for, it's what keeps them afloat. Failing to do so for a few years puts you way way back (see Liverpool).
The financial fair play that is to come into place is an attempt to try and level the playing field, but will only make things worse. It will ensure the rich stay rich, whilst the poorer stay poor. If Man Utd earn £500m a year, then they can spend £500m a year. If Fulham earn £70m, they can only spend £70m. Ii effectively prevents any chance of a rich businessman taking over a smaller team, spending money on players to make them contenders. It is basically closing shop to everyone else. If you're on the inside, great; if you are on the outside looking in, you're screwed.
People say that a wage cap would make things fairer; it wouldn't. It would just mean top teams will pay all players the maximum, leaving smaller teams unable to keep their players happy on smaller wages, and mean they would inevitable lose out when going head-to-head with a bigger club trying to sign a player.
The big clubs will never agree to spending less money. I feel the only way to make it a level playing field would be to let the big clubs carry on spending all the money they want, but change the points system. At the moment, a win gives you 3 points, a draw gives you 1, irrespective of who you play. I think there should be a handicap introduced where a small club beating a big club would give them more points than a big club beating a small club. You could define a big and small club either by how much they earn or spend, or by whatever teams finished 4th the following year.
It would only apply when a big and small team played; the other games would be the same:
- big team beats small team - 3 points
- small team beats big team - 5 points
- big team draws with small team - 1 point
- small team draws with big team - 2 points
- big team beats big team - 3 points
- small team beats small team - 3 points
- big team draws with big team - 1 point
- small team draws with small team - 1 point
If it was in place for 10 years, you would see teams finishing a lot closer together, a lot more different teams qualifying for the Champions League, and even see a few different teams win the league.
Reader Comments (65)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
Kevin Hudson
2 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:42:16
2 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:42:16
Essentially, what you're saying is: " It's not fair! Make it fairer, so we can compete! Boo-hoo!"
Did you complain when we were the Mersey-Millionaires?
Lily-livered, pie-in-the-sky, horse-shit.
Did you complain when we were the Mersey-Millionaires?
Lily-livered, pie-in-the-sky, horse-shit.
Dawson Boyle
3 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:16:12
3 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:16:12
This is absolutely insane.
To improve the game you have suggested changing the single aspect that remains fair to all teams - 3 points for a win 1 for a draw.
Also, to say a wage cap would fall into the hands of the biggest teams is nonsense. As Robin said, the wage cap would be set for the whole squad.
I've got some proposals to make the league fairer, it's a bit communist, but it just might work:
If football accounting was more transparent it would be easy to set a wage cap at something like 60% of the smallest team's annual revenue.
Every league would follow the 60% of the smallest team's revenue rule. Every season the wage cap would get reassessed. It is possible that some seasons the wage cap would decrease if a smaller club, such as Blackpool was promoted. The cap, however, would be likely to fluctuate most as a result of TV revenue for that year.
Players under the age of 17 would be exempt from the wage cap.
I would propose that no player could sign anything longer than a one year contract. If a player genuinely liked the club his commitment would be tested on a yearly basis. This would also help relegated teams who are suddenly lumbered with a crippling wage bill.
Every player would be free to move clubs up to two weeks before the start of the season. After that they must stay until the season is finished.
Players would not have to go out on loan because every season they are playing for a new contract anyway.
I would abolish transfer fees completely. The belief that small teams need them to survive is a total mythology. The paltry sums that filter down the leagues are gobbled up in agent fees and wages and further signings and the really big money generally gets batted around the bigger clubs.
If a club's owner wants to make £500m in revenue a year then fine. He can invest it in club infrastructure, give some to the local community, give it back to the fans in subsidies, or keep it in an offshore bank account. It's entirely up to them. If football is a business let it generate money, but don't let this money ruin competition.
To improve the game you have suggested changing the single aspect that remains fair to all teams - 3 points for a win 1 for a draw.
Also, to say a wage cap would fall into the hands of the biggest teams is nonsense. As Robin said, the wage cap would be set for the whole squad.
I've got some proposals to make the league fairer, it's a bit communist, but it just might work:
If football accounting was more transparent it would be easy to set a wage cap at something like 60% of the smallest team's annual revenue.
Every league would follow the 60% of the smallest team's revenue rule. Every season the wage cap would get reassessed. It is possible that some seasons the wage cap would decrease if a smaller club, such as Blackpool was promoted. The cap, however, would be likely to fluctuate most as a result of TV revenue for that year.
Players under the age of 17 would be exempt from the wage cap.
I would propose that no player could sign anything longer than a one year contract. If a player genuinely liked the club his commitment would be tested on a yearly basis. This would also help relegated teams who are suddenly lumbered with a crippling wage bill.
Every player would be free to move clubs up to two weeks before the start of the season. After that they must stay until the season is finished.
Players would not have to go out on loan because every season they are playing for a new contract anyway.
I would abolish transfer fees completely. The belief that small teams need them to survive is a total mythology. The paltry sums that filter down the leagues are gobbled up in agent fees and wages and further signings and the really big money generally gets batted around the bigger clubs.
If a club's owner wants to make £500m in revenue a year then fine. He can invest it in club infrastructure, give some to the local community, give it back to the fans in subsidies, or keep it in an offshore bank account. It's entirely up to them. If football is a business let it generate money, but don't let this money ruin competition.
Andrew Ellams
4 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:35:43
4 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:35:43
There was an idea flying around about capping salaries at a percentage of the individual clubs annual turnover, but surely this would just widen the gap.
The PL will always look after it's own interests, and at the moment that means making sure that Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal and the RS are marketable overseas and this will only happen as long as they are successful
The PL will always look after it's own interests, and at the moment that means making sure that Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal and the RS are marketable overseas and this will only happen as long as they are successful
Andrew Ellams
5 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:48:12
5 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:48:12
Dawson, if you had 12 month rolling contracts then you would effectively kill off transfer fees because every player would be available on a free at the end of each season until he negotiated a new deal. Transfer fees are the lifeline of smaller clubs ie Wigan etc. who buy players like Valencia and Palacios for reasonably cheap and sell them on for huge profits.
Also, if you have players negotiating new contracts every year, they are going to want signing on fees for each new one, not to mention the wage increases.
Also, if you have players negotiating new contracts every year, they are going to want signing on fees for each new one, not to mention the wage increases.
Steve Ferns
6 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:44:22
6 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:44:22
I think he's trying to argue that a player might agree to be on a lesser salary purely for the prestige of playing for a bigger club. The big clubs may persuade a player to make up the numbers on smaller wages than be paid a bigger salary for a bigger role at a smaller club.
This might work with say a Michael Owen, but it's not likely to work with most players where money talksor they are more likely to want to play.
A wage cap for the team as a whole is more likely to be more effective, less ambiguous than what is suggested and less open to corruption (though there's always a way - image rights etc - see NFL).
This might work with say a Michael Owen, but it's not likely to work with most players where money talksor they are more likely to want to play.
A wage cap for the team as a whole is more likely to be more effective, less ambiguous than what is suggested and less open to corruption (though there's always a way - image rights etc - see NFL).
Dawson Boyle
7 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:54:16
7 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:54:16
Andrew, If Wigan only need to pay 60% of the smallest team's revenue they don't need a "lifeblood." In the premier league it still amounts to several million quid.
There would be no need to have transfer fees. Every team would be able to survive and there would be no danger of any club going into administration. I think you might have totally missed my point.
Also, there would be no signing on fees. If a player wants to pay an agent a percentage of their wages like an actor or a writer would it's entirely up to them. Players would be paid a reasonable salary. If they don't get paid enough they can go and work as builders 3 days a week like they used to. Where do you think Wigan's huge profits go at the moment? On transfer fees, signing on fees, agents fees and inflated player wages. It's a vicious circle that could be stopped with these simple rule changes.
There would be no need to have transfer fees. Every team would be able to survive and there would be no danger of any club going into administration. I think you might have totally missed my point.
Also, there would be no signing on fees. If a player wants to pay an agent a percentage of their wages like an actor or a writer would it's entirely up to them. Players would be paid a reasonable salary. If they don't get paid enough they can go and work as builders 3 days a week like they used to. Where do you think Wigan's huge profits go at the moment? On transfer fees, signing on fees, agents fees and inflated player wages. It's a vicious circle that could be stopped with these simple rule changes.
Steve Pugh
8 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:55:07
8 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:55:07
Surely a wage cap of £20k a week per player, coupled with a 25 player squad limit would mean that everyone has a chance. It would also reduce the amount of money flowing out of the game. Obviously it would have to be enforced worldwide.
Andrew Ellams
9 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:09:12
9 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:09:12
Unfortunately the players and agents have got the game by the short and curlies at the moment and it's going to take something really drastic to change it, possibly even a large club going bust an giving them all a huge fright but I can't see that happening soon.
Dawson Boyle
10 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:11:53
10 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:11:53
And ban the Champions League. Make it a knockout competition where the winner (WHO HAS TO BE A CHAMPION OF HIS EFFING LEAGUE) Gets a handshake and a trophy. And the team each get a commemorative plate and a T-shirt.
Antony Matthews
11 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:12:09
11 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:12:09
Why don't we make the top richest club's goalie play with one arm behind his back, or their centre forward play in stocking feet....... the options are endless!
Paul Knox
12 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:09:49
12 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:09:49
What a load of rubbish. There has always been rich clubs and poor ones, it applies to buying of players to. The rich clubs have business men running them and in the old days so did we. Changing points systems and or wage caps won't help; winning games and good business plan is best and always will.
Alan Clarke
13 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:25:31
13 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:25:31
How about as part of the salary cap, players get a very basic wage (£70/week) then the bonus (upto £50k/week) is decided by the match going fans? Perhaps we'd not have to witness the absolute crap from Neville last Saturday or Anichebe lying on the floor faking injury.
Dawson Boyle
14 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:34:04
14 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:34:04
Views like yours Paul Knox is what's killing the game. What Man City and Chelsea and possibly Blackburn before them have done in buying the league has got absolutely nothing to do with the old days. If we don't do something to level the playing field we will never win the League again in our lifetimes. When have we ever been able to say that? Extraordinary times needs extraordinary measures. What does spending a billion quid on players salaries and transfers have to do with a good business plan?
Robin Cannon
15 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:32:01
15 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:32:01
"There has always been rich clubs and poor ones, it applies to buying of players to. The rich clubs have business men running them and in the old days so did we. Changing points systems and or wage caps won't help; winning games and good business plan is best and always will."
@Paul - while you're right, I think developments over the last decade or so have made things far more unbalanced than they ever were in the past.
While there were always differences in wealth of clubs, it was possible to offset this with solid business practices, good coaching and common sense; at least long enough to achieve reasonable success over several seasons. That's no longer possible. Even good business practices are becoming effectively irrelevant, because the amount of money flooding into the game from certain owners is effectively unlimited.
When you get to the point where spending hundreds of millions of pounds is effectively pocket change to some owners, where the clubs they own are pretty much just fun toys for them, then there's no real consequence for failure and no opportunity for others to ultimately compete, no matter how well run they are.
@Paul - while you're right, I think developments over the last decade or so have made things far more unbalanced than they ever were in the past.
While there were always differences in wealth of clubs, it was possible to offset this with solid business practices, good coaching and common sense; at least long enough to achieve reasonable success over several seasons. That's no longer possible. Even good business practices are becoming effectively irrelevant, because the amount of money flooding into the game from certain owners is effectively unlimited.
When you get to the point where spending hundreds of millions of pounds is effectively pocket change to some owners, where the clubs they own are pretty much just fun toys for them, then there's no real consequence for failure and no opportunity for others to ultimately compete, no matter how well run they are.
Ben Howard
16 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:40:56
16 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:40:56
Ha ha ha! I sympathise with Jimmy and share his frustrations but this is pretty ridiculous mate. What happens when teams at the bottom of the ladder play big teams in the cup? Do they start with a 5 goal headstart?
Andrew Ellams
17 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:41:12
17 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:41:12
The problems lie in what is going to happen when the bubble finally bursts. Regulating salaries etc. not only level out the playing field, but also protect he clubs against imploding when the worst case scenario actually happens
Dawson Boyle
18 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:52:50
18 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:52:50
Here's a good article from a few years ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/jan/27/sport.blueprintforabetterfootball
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/jan/27/sport.blueprintforabetterfootball
Trevor Mackie
19 Posted 28/09/2011 at 17:06:10
19 Posted 28/09/2011 at 17:06:10
The handicap system exists.
To avoid lesser clubs getting hammered by the big boys they go in the Championship - won't be long now.
To avoid lesser clubs getting hammered by the big boys they go in the Championship - won't be long now.
Chris Ashton
20 Posted 28/09/2011 at 17:05:18
20 Posted 28/09/2011 at 17:05:18
I would have thought players will go abroad for more money.
Jimmy Stenn
21 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:07:28
21 Posted 28/09/2011 at 16:07:28
To be honest, it was just something that came into mind after looking through the racing pages of the paper.
It isn't a case of us not having money so wanting to penalise teams who have, it's looking at a way which gives an accurate reflection of what we see every Saturday.
Can you honestly expect a team other than Man U, Man City or Chelsea to win the league? Many people in England used to deride the Spanish and Scottish leagues for being two horse races, are we that much better?
It isn't a case of us not having money so wanting to penalise teams who have, it's looking at a way which gives an accurate reflection of what we see every Saturday.
Can you honestly expect a team other than Man U, Man City or Chelsea to win the league? Many people in England used to deride the Spanish and Scottish leagues for being two horse races, are we that much better?
John Ford
22 Posted 28/09/2011 at 17:20:53
22 Posted 28/09/2011 at 17:20:53
Jimmy I think youre intentions are spot on.
We've always had differing levels of wealth with clubs but it's only the past few years that money has singularly determinded who will, and more importantly who wont win trophies.
The TW boards have been volatile this week, and sometimes just too much, probably me included. Whatever peoples views on Moyes tactics, Everton are top of the list of teams to have been utterly shafted by distorted finances. I say top of the list because no other team has come closer than us in breaking the money monopoly, and to be honest we didnt really get that close.
As fans we retain high expectations for our club, which might explain the frustration on this weeks threads, At the moment we just make up the numbers for the money clubs.
I
We've always had differing levels of wealth with clubs but it's only the past few years that money has singularly determinded who will, and more importantly who wont win trophies.
The TW boards have been volatile this week, and sometimes just too much, probably me included. Whatever peoples views on Moyes tactics, Everton are top of the list of teams to have been utterly shafted by distorted finances. I say top of the list because no other team has come closer than us in breaking the money monopoly, and to be honest we didnt really get that close.
As fans we retain high expectations for our club, which might explain the frustration on this weeks threads, At the moment we just make up the numbers for the money clubs.
I
Andrew Humphrey
23 Posted 28/09/2011 at 18:22:07
23 Posted 28/09/2011 at 18:22:07
How about a handicap system where teams from say the top 8 aren't allowed to play with a Striker...see Everton are ahead of the game already!
Kevin Tully
24 Posted 28/09/2011 at 18:15:20
24 Posted 28/09/2011 at 18:15:20
The divide won't be addressed until T.V. subscriptions dwindle and crowds disappear I'm afraid.
Sky cream themselves over the top four and they sell their product accordingly, with the end result being the Champions League final.
It's all about the money - and we are on the outside, looking in.
The top 20 clubs in Europe have created a monopoly, why would they vote for change?
Sky cream themselves over the top four and they sell their product accordingly, with the end result being the Champions League final.
It's all about the money - and we are on the outside, looking in.
The top 20 clubs in Europe have created a monopoly, why would they vote for change?
Gavin Ramejkis
25 Posted 28/09/2011 at 18:46:50
25 Posted 28/09/2011 at 18:46:50
How about a standard retention wage across the board and a win bonus, you'd not see the half arsed, cant be arsed mincers we see week in week out then
Denis Richardson
26 Posted 28/09/2011 at 19:02:29
26 Posted 28/09/2011 at 19:02:29
Good intention but not sure about the idea. I dont think any of the people in power have a long term view and in the short to medium term, any of the top clubs voting for any idea that makes the playing field more level, would be like a turkey voting for xmas.
I think things will eventually come to a head when the bubble bursts and the subscriptions and fans dwindle.
The top clubs have no short term incentive to change the status quo so its going to take something big and cannot see FIFA or UEFA doing anything.
I think things will eventually come to a head when the bubble bursts and the subscriptions and fans dwindle.
The top clubs have no short term incentive to change the status quo so its going to take something big and cannot see FIFA or UEFA doing anything.
Simon Templeman
27 Posted 28/09/2011 at 20:05:45
27 Posted 28/09/2011 at 20:05:45
Another idea could be points deductions according to the debt the club is carrying, say 1 point per £10m. Thus we would start with minus 4 or 5, Blacpool last year would start on 0 and Man City start on minus 35? Just a thought.
Joe McMahon
28 Posted 28/09/2011 at 20:36:48
28 Posted 28/09/2011 at 20:36:48
Crazy thing is we should have been in the elite, but Kenwright mistakes (Kings Dock one of many) and unattractive to watch on the pitch (Moyes) have made us miss the boat. Everton in 2011 are summed up by the dated antiquated stadium and the worst football there has ever been (Tactics last week). School of Science, Nil Satis (these need to be dropped)
Mark Stone
29 Posted 28/09/2011 at 20:45:46
29 Posted 28/09/2011 at 20:45:46
I think we missed the boat a long time before Bill Kenwright stepped up, Joe.
Steve Cotton
30 Posted 28/09/2011 at 20:43:32
30 Posted 28/09/2011 at 20:43:32
some ideas that might help.
1. no loaning of players within the same division
2. any loans, the loaning team has to pay full wekly wage not a subsidised one
3. any club can appeal to have the referees performance assed with all findings listed in the public domain, any underperforming refs would be answerable (ie Webb)
4. all european games should be knock out only to stop the second chance system of a league
5. all clubs should have a minimum number of appearances on tv to guarantee revenue.
6. agents fees are payable by the player not the club, make this a legal requirement.
7. clubs buying english players to meet their quota of home grown should not be able to submit a players credentials as a home grown player until with the club for a full season.
1. no loaning of players within the same division
2. any loans, the loaning team has to pay full wekly wage not a subsidised one
3. any club can appeal to have the referees performance assed with all findings listed in the public domain, any underperforming refs would be answerable (ie Webb)
4. all european games should be knock out only to stop the second chance system of a league
5. all clubs should have a minimum number of appearances on tv to guarantee revenue.
6. agents fees are payable by the player not the club, make this a legal requirement.
7. clubs buying english players to meet their quota of home grown should not be able to submit a players credentials as a home grown player until with the club for a full season.
Peter Knight
31 Posted 28/09/2011 at 20:18:37
31 Posted 28/09/2011 at 20:18:37
The only way I see it Uefa would have to do it for all European leagues and each team would have the same amount of money allowed to spend on a 22 man squad. Which means Man City wanted to spend most of there budget on Tevez, Nasri, they would soon run out of money and have to sign cheaper player's to make up the Squad.
No players would be allowed to be loaned out to other clubs. The top clubs would breakaway and form their own league and Fifa would have to ban the players from playing for their Countries.
So there is no solution
John Daley
32 Posted 28/09/2011 at 20:59:43
32 Posted 28/09/2011 at 20:59:43
"Why don't we make the top richest club's goalie play with one arm behind his back, or their centre forward play in stocking feet....... the options are endless!"
Can we make them start with Anichebe upfront?
Can we make them start with Anichebe upfront?
Colin Wainwright
33 Posted 28/09/2011 at 21:16:46
33 Posted 28/09/2011 at 21:16:46
Can we not just start again. Jumpers for goalposts.
Dean Adams
34 Posted 28/09/2011 at 21:26:52
34 Posted 28/09/2011 at 21:26:52
John Daley
It wasn't that long ago we started with him and half our fans moaned. Now Moyes doesnt start him they are complaining that we are playing without a striker. Can't see much difference myself.
It wasn't that long ago we started with him and half our fans moaned. Now Moyes doesnt start him they are complaining that we are playing without a striker. Can't see much difference myself.
Peter Laing
35 Posted 28/09/2011 at 21:46:40
35 Posted 28/09/2011 at 21:46:40
The reason we are on the outside looking in is because of the one and only blue rinse tinted Sir Philip Carter, one of the old school tie, ultra conservatives who tried to do a deal with ITV and had the rug pulled well and truly from under his twinkle-toed feet by the cunning Mr Murdoch. To think that not long before that Manchester United were in dissaray, they even had that conman Michael Knighton juggling like a ten year old in front of the dilapidated Stretford End. Carter incidentally is still around as Life President for his 'services' to Everton and probably gives good old Blue Bill the funny handshake every time he pawns off one of our remaining pieces of family silver.
Brian Denton
36 Posted 28/09/2011 at 22:35:25
36 Posted 28/09/2011 at 22:35:25
I posted this in an earlier topic, but that one is a week old so has probably disappeared off the radar. It was in reply to those people (like some of the posters above) who have tried to re-write history to say we were the Man City or Chelsea of the 60s with John Moores. So no apologies for a bit of cutting and pasting:-
Mick Davies, that's a very selective view of history, to draw a straight comparison between us in the 60s and the likes of City today. Firstly IIRC, John Moores underwrote Everton - he wasn't a Jack Walker figure, actually GIVING the club money out of his arse pocket.
Secondly, you only have to look at the variety of clubs who won the League in the 60s and 70s (Ipswich, Burnley, Forest, Derby, Leeds, even shitty City) to realise that having a multi-millionaire in the background might have been nice, but it wasn't a necessity. Alan Ball apart, I don't think any of the 'marquee' players (Best, Law, Charlton, the West Ham trio, Jimmy Greaves etc) played for Everton, did they.........?
So, no: I don't accept the comparison at all. And to suggest that we should is to therefore condone the disgusting brothel of the Premier League by saying things were no better then. They were.
Mick Davies, that's a very selective view of history, to draw a straight comparison between us in the 60s and the likes of City today. Firstly IIRC, John Moores underwrote Everton - he wasn't a Jack Walker figure, actually GIVING the club money out of his arse pocket.
Secondly, you only have to look at the variety of clubs who won the League in the 60s and 70s (Ipswich, Burnley, Forest, Derby, Leeds, even shitty City) to realise that having a multi-millionaire in the background might have been nice, but it wasn't a necessity. Alan Ball apart, I don't think any of the 'marquee' players (Best, Law, Charlton, the West Ham trio, Jimmy Greaves etc) played for Everton, did they.........?
So, no: I don't accept the comparison at all. And to suggest that we should is to therefore condone the disgusting brothel of the Premier League by saying things were no better then. They were.
Steve Woods
37 Posted 28/09/2011 at 23:45:11
37 Posted 28/09/2011 at 23:45:11
Brian @ 35 -' the disgusting brothel of the Premier League' - Absolutely spot on. A term I will use in the future.
Steve Woods
38 Posted 28/09/2011 at 23:53:40
38 Posted 28/09/2011 at 23:53:40
@ Peter 34 - So true. I remember watching Michael Knighton on TV at their stadium and the shambles that was Man Utd. and having a good laugh.
I also remember when the inglorious premier league was invented by Everton and 4 others big clubs.
The laugh is now on us and on our club. Our board have spectacularly failed to keep in touch with the other founder members of the EPL brothel.
I also remember when the inglorious premier league was invented by Everton and 4 others big clubs.
The laugh is now on us and on our club. Our board have spectacularly failed to keep in touch with the other founder members of the EPL brothel.
Jay Prendergast
39 Posted 29/09/2011 at 00:41:29
39 Posted 29/09/2011 at 00:41:29
Solution is fairly simple IMO - go back to 1 substitute.
This would mean the wealthier clubs don't have the insurance of a row of top internationals on the bench being able to change the course of games.
Also many quality players who are kept appeased by regularly getting time on the pitch via sub appearances would have to decide whether they want a career which involves rarely being onvolved in match day never mind playing.
Hopefully this would then be an incentive for players to move to clubs where they will play and thus lead to a wider spread of talent across all teams.
This would mean the wealthier clubs don't have the insurance of a row of top internationals on the bench being able to change the course of games.
Also many quality players who are kept appeased by regularly getting time on the pitch via sub appearances would have to decide whether they want a career which involves rarely being onvolved in match day never mind playing.
Hopefully this would then be an incentive for players to move to clubs where they will play and thus lead to a wider spread of talent across all teams.
Roman Sidey
40 Posted 29/09/2011 at 01:42:53
40 Posted 29/09/2011 at 01:42:53
You wanna see a fair competition that is realistic without being all "mum said we have to share"? Take a look at the model the AFL (Aussie Rules) uses.
Salary cap of x (Might be around $8million p.a. at the moment.
Exemptions to the cap include:
- long term injuries. Players have to be nominated onto the club's list and approved by the AFL so that a portion of their salary is exempt from the cap
- veteran list. The club can have 2 players listed as veterans which only counts half of their salary against the cap.
Add to this, there is a set salary for all rookies irrespective of what club they play for, and they can only negotiate a new contract for when their current one is ending (i.e. they can't have a great game then demand higher wages the next day with a threat of leaving).
All of this in a comp that is set up by an annual draft.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the contracts these players sign are ACTUALLY WORTH SOMETHING.
Salary cap of x (Might be around $8million p.a. at the moment.
Exemptions to the cap include:
- long term injuries. Players have to be nominated onto the club's list and approved by the AFL so that a portion of their salary is exempt from the cap
- veteran list. The club can have 2 players listed as veterans which only counts half of their salary against the cap.
Add to this, there is a set salary for all rookies irrespective of what club they play for, and they can only negotiate a new contract for when their current one is ending (i.e. they can't have a great game then demand higher wages the next day with a threat of leaving).
All of this in a comp that is set up by an annual draft.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the contracts these players sign are ACTUALLY WORTH SOMETHING.
Roman Sidey
41 Posted 29/09/2011 at 01:42:53
41 Posted 29/09/2011 at 01:42:53
You wanna see a fair competition that is realistic without being all "mum said we have to share"? Take a look at the model the AFL (Aussie Rules) uses.
Salary cap of x (Might be around $8million p.a. at the moment.
Exemptions to the cap include:
- long term injuries. Players have to be nominated onto the club's list and approved by the AFL so that a portion of their salary is exempt from the cap
- veteran list. The club can have 2 players listed as veterans which only counts half of their salary against the cap.
Add to this, there is a set salary for all rookies irrespective of what club they play for, and they can only negotiate a new contract for when their current one is ending (i.e. they can't have a great game then demand higher wages the next day with a threat of leaving).
All of this in a comp that is set up by an annual draft.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the contracts these players sign are ACTUALLY WORTH SOMETHING.
Salary cap of x (Might be around $8million p.a. at the moment.
Exemptions to the cap include:
- long term injuries. Players have to be nominated onto the club's list and approved by the AFL so that a portion of their salary is exempt from the cap
- veteran list. The club can have 2 players listed as veterans which only counts half of their salary against the cap.
Add to this, there is a set salary for all rookies irrespective of what club they play for, and they can only negotiate a new contract for when their current one is ending (i.e. they can't have a great game then demand higher wages the next day with a threat of leaving).
All of this in a comp that is set up by an annual draft.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the contracts these players sign are ACTUALLY WORTH SOMETHING.
Rory Slingo
42 Posted 29/09/2011 at 03:14:45
42 Posted 29/09/2011 at 03:14:45
If Everton have come this far (4th spot, FA Cup final, top 7 finishes) without a good business plan, imagine where we'd be if we had one!? Do we really need all this handicap stuff?
We're a rudderless ship managing to just stay afloat. We need a rudder to go off in the right direction, we don't need a new ocean!
We're a rudderless ship managing to just stay afloat. We need a rudder to go off in the right direction, we don't need a new ocean!
Peter Barry
43 Posted 29/09/2011 at 08:02:49
43 Posted 29/09/2011 at 08:02:49
What has distorted everything is the TV Money and Foreign Billionaires who are allowed to spend whatever they like on their Toys (the Clubs). So the Premier Championship is no longer won by the better managed team it is won by the Club with the most money to buy the best mercenary Prima Donnas (TEVEZ et al). This will never change unless the field is leveled after all it is done in very competitive Formula One by regulations governing how the team can construct its car (Team) its then up to the Driver (Manger) to use this Car (Team) to its best advantage over the season keeping to the RULES so why not in Football. A rule to make the MAJORITY of players in each fielded team UK Nationals would be a good start.
Eugene Ruane
44 Posted 29/09/2011 at 08:44:36
44 Posted 29/09/2011 at 08:44:36
Don't agree with the big team-small team points handicapping stuff (coz it's..erm...mad) BUT I'm as sure as I can be, that if things continue the way they are, with ONLY three or four teams able to actually challenge for the league and everyone else (including us) playing in a league they simply cannot win, then attendances for the non 'big' clubs will eventually suffer very badly. Currently our attendances are way down and the two main reasons given are protest and/or economics. I'm sure both theses reasons are valid, but I also know quite a few life-long blues who don't go anymore because "No fucking point, can't win it". The reality is, if we can't win it, sooner or later, it becomes easier to find something else to do with forty nicker on a Saturday afternoon (Sunday lunchtime, Tuesday morning, whenever). If Sky, the PL etc had ANY sense, they would be addressing this now. However there's no chance of that and they will, like the greedy, near-sighted children they are, react only when it's all too late. Consequently there's now only two ways that teams in the 'premier' league will ever again compete on a (relatively) equal footing. 1) Every club is owned by an exteremely rich individual. 2) The entire house of shite collapses and everyone starts again with new rules on spending. Let's face it, people wouldn't watch Usain Bolt for long if 90% of those he was running against had a leg missing. Come to think of it, that is more-or-less how I see Everton right now - a one-legged man trying to win the Olympic 100m (nb: while wearing Freeman Hardy and Willis trainees)
Ste Boyle
45 Posted 29/09/2011 at 09:40:05
45 Posted 29/09/2011 at 09:40:05
Roman 41 makes a good point. It works the same in the NFL in the US. Yes the sports are different but the NFL has rules to ensure they don't have consistent minnows and that all teams have a fair chance.
The team rated as 'the worst' gets 1st pick of all the top college kids coming into the NFL in the 'draft'. Those who win the Superbowl are down the pecking order.
I remember teams like San Diego being pants in my high school days, im sure they've won it or been close recently.......What this rule does is keep the playing field level and eliminates the power of the rich teams and puts an emphasis on developing a team and not just buying players, i.e. A good team this year can still be good next, doesn't matter if they get a good or bad place in the draft.....
Something needs to change in football, but it won't be allowed, the big clubs love it too much.
The team rated as 'the worst' gets 1st pick of all the top college kids coming into the NFL in the 'draft'. Those who win the Superbowl are down the pecking order.
I remember teams like San Diego being pants in my high school days, im sure they've won it or been close recently.......What this rule does is keep the playing field level and eliminates the power of the rich teams and puts an emphasis on developing a team and not just buying players, i.e. A good team this year can still be good next, doesn't matter if they get a good or bad place in the draft.....
Something needs to change in football, but it won't be allowed, the big clubs love it too much.
Mike Keating
46 Posted 29/09/2011 at 12:47:48
46 Posted 29/09/2011 at 12:47:48
Let's not forget that Phillip Carter was one of the 'Big Five' who 20 years ago broke away from the Football League to form the Premiership so that they could keep more of the Sky money for themselves and leave the lower divisions to fight for the leftovers.
Anyone interested in this little bit of often overlooked history should read David Conn's "Beautiful Game? In Search of the Soul of Football".
Of course when he wrote it Conn's team had been in the wilderness for over 30 years - what he feels now that City have bribed their way to the top table is anyone's guess. Great read all the same with a very interesting insight into how Arsenal got into the top flight after the 1st World War thus securing a record as longest serving team in the top flight which should be ours. If you know yer 'istory etc...
COYB
Ted Smeethes
47 Posted 29/09/2011 at 13:11:20
47 Posted 29/09/2011 at 13:11:20
Jay Prendergast (39) - spot on, 1 sub would be a great leveller.
Ste Boyle
48 Posted 29/09/2011 at 16:33:30
48 Posted 29/09/2011 at 16:33:30
Jay (39). That was mentioned a few days ago think it was on TalkLondon (Sport). It certainly would have the effect your talking about but as usual, when threatened you'll get a load of nonesense from the BIG 5 managers about fatigue and what if I get players injured etc. They seem to forget that it worked very well a few years ago.
I am not sure 1 would ever be allowed, but there could be some ground at 3 or even 2 to cover the injury....
I am not sure 1 would ever be allowed, but there could be some ground at 3 or even 2 to cover the injury....
Ernie Baywood
49 Posted 29/09/2011 at 17:16:28
49 Posted 29/09/2011 at 17:16:28
Football clubs can't regulate themselves so I completely agree that there needs to a 'leveller'. That can't be a points system but I would like to see a salary cap one day - in fact I think it will happen once this bubble bursts.
The principle should be that it's harder to stay at the top - not easier as with the current money dominated system.
So cap the overall salary and limit squad sizes - the best players will need the best salaries which leads to a breaking point. The point when you need to offload a few players because you're squad is too good. Players might decide to sacrifice pay for the opportunity to keep the team together and maybe win something - wouldn't that be refreshing?
Won't happen while the money's pouring in to the top few but when things drop a bit and these buggers start to struggle - they're all basically banking on the next year's CL money with the contracts they're committed to - we'll see change.
Get it back to being a sport.
The principle should be that it's harder to stay at the top - not easier as with the current money dominated system.
So cap the overall salary and limit squad sizes - the best players will need the best salaries which leads to a breaking point. The point when you need to offload a few players because you're squad is too good. Players might decide to sacrifice pay for the opportunity to keep the team together and maybe win something - wouldn't that be refreshing?
Won't happen while the money's pouring in to the top few but when things drop a bit and these buggers start to struggle - they're all basically banking on the next year's CL money with the contracts they're committed to - we'll see change.
Get it back to being a sport.
Wayne Smyth
50 Posted 29/09/2011 at 17:22:48
50 Posted 29/09/2011 at 17:22:48
For starters I think Jimmy's idea is a nonsense.
That aside, the reason why a club like Everton is not competitive is not because of sky or the premier league. The issue is and always has been the champions league.
The difference per league placing in the EPL is about 500k or so I believe. That is linear, top to bottom. There is no great inequality there.
The £20-£30M / season from the Champions League is available to 4 clubs only and if you're prepared to invest, achieving a top 4 finish is far more achievable than finishing top.
Quite ironically, the best thing that could have happened to upset the apple cart is clubs like Man City and Spurs spending big. This changes the accepted order and makes it is impossible for them all to get the riches of the CL. Wont matter to Man City or Chelsea much, but to our good friends across the park and clubs like Arsenal it is a real worry.
After a few seasons outside that league it will bring clubs like Arsenal and RS back onto a more level playing field compared to us as they struggle to balance the books. It will also give an everton, spurs or villa a much better shot at getting one of those places themselves.
That aside, the reason why a club like Everton is not competitive is not because of sky or the premier league. The issue is and always has been the champions league.
The difference per league placing in the EPL is about 500k or so I believe. That is linear, top to bottom. There is no great inequality there.
The £20-£30M / season from the Champions League is available to 4 clubs only and if you're prepared to invest, achieving a top 4 finish is far more achievable than finishing top.
Quite ironically, the best thing that could have happened to upset the apple cart is clubs like Man City and Spurs spending big. This changes the accepted order and makes it is impossible for them all to get the riches of the CL. Wont matter to Man City or Chelsea much, but to our good friends across the park and clubs like Arsenal it is a real worry.
After a few seasons outside that league it will bring clubs like Arsenal and RS back onto a more level playing field compared to us as they struggle to balance the books. It will also give an everton, spurs or villa a much better shot at getting one of those places themselves.
Jimmy Stenn
51 Posted 29/09/2011 at 18:04:24
51 Posted 29/09/2011 at 18:04:24
@Wayne 50
You think the best thing to come out of Man City being able to spend hundreds of millions on players is the fact that Liverpool may not qualify for the Champions League?
There's a world outside Stanley Park mate
You think the best thing to come out of Man City being able to spend hundreds of millions on players is the fact that Liverpool may not qualify for the Champions League?
There's a world outside Stanley Park mate
Kevin Freaney
52 Posted 29/09/2011 at 18:06:53
52 Posted 29/09/2011 at 18:06:53
I think at the end of the day, if, as a manager, you get your tactics right you can nullify the effect money has.
No matter how good a player is they can be marked out of a game.
Moyes tried it against Man City but forgot that you also need to attack a team as well as defend. He didn't get his tactics right at the end of the day.
No matter how good a player is they can be marked out of a game.
Moyes tried it against Man City but forgot that you also need to attack a team as well as defend. He didn't get his tactics right at the end of the day.
Jimmy Stenn
53 Posted 29/09/2011 at 18:13:31
53 Posted 29/09/2011 at 18:13:31
Kevin, if that's the case, then why do the teams who spend the most money finish higher up? Not just in our league, but all leagues?
It's not as simple as getting your tactics right anymore mate.
It's not as simple as getting your tactics right anymore mate.
Tony Cheek
54 Posted 29/09/2011 at 19:25:11
54 Posted 29/09/2011 at 19:25:11
What about for every 10 mill clubs use on new signings they get two minus points. good huh?
Kevin Freaney
55 Posted 29/09/2011 at 20:30:02
55 Posted 29/09/2011 at 20:30:02
Jimmy #53 That's a fair point. But at the same time those clubs have top managers. Look at Liverpool under Daglish and Benetiz. Loads of money, poor managers.
I think we've proved as a club that these teams can be beaten if you use your tactics well.
I think we've proved as a club that these teams can be beaten if you use your tactics well.
Colin Wainwright
56 Posted 29/09/2011 at 21:45:20
56 Posted 29/09/2011 at 21:45:20
Don't worry about it Mike.
Colin Wainwright
57 Posted 29/09/2011 at 21:45:20
57 Posted 29/09/2011 at 21:45:20
Don't worry about it Mike.
Roman Sidey
58 Posted 30/09/2011 at 03:20:32
58 Posted 30/09/2011 at 03:20:32
I guess the saving grace of this (obviously the issue is big to Everton at the moment because we just lost to City and we are skint) is that if City do win the League, the owners will probably pack up and leave for another big shiny toy. Within a few years they will be back down where they belong, and struggling to stay up.
The one thing we have got over them is the fact that we blood youth, and have players coming through who most of them WILL eventually do one of two things: bring us good money from a transfer, or win us some trophies.
City are honestly the only club going for silverware that don't have youth in the ranks, and that will come back to bite them when the IPL, NHL, or IRB gets the attention of the billionaires.
The one thing we have got over them is the fact that we blood youth, and have players coming through who most of them WILL eventually do one of two things: bring us good money from a transfer, or win us some trophies.
City are honestly the only club going for silverware that don't have youth in the ranks, and that will come back to bite them when the IPL, NHL, or IRB gets the attention of the billionaires.
Ciaran Duff
59 Posted 30/09/2011 at 03:47:34
59 Posted 30/09/2011 at 03:47:34
I agree that the current Prem Lge setup is getting too lobsided and the divide between rich and poor is getting more and more extreme. A salary cap or draft system would be much fairer and I think the average club fan would be happier. However, the issue is that the Prem Lge is not interested in local fans, it is hooked into the global market and TV money. Bringing in any sort of cap might mean a) upsetting the current hierarchy (and global fans) & b) losing their "top global league" status to Spain, Italy, Germany. So it aint going to happen unfortunately unless the whole house of cards collapses.
Mike Keating
60 Posted 30/09/2011 at 09:42:53
60 Posted 30/09/2011 at 09:42:53
Colin 57 & 58 - get a grip you're repeating yourself!
Wayne Smyth
61 Posted 30/09/2011 at 19:13:04
61 Posted 30/09/2011 at 19:13:04
Jimmy (51), that's not quite what I said; I also don't like discussions based on strawman arguments, but I'll humour you this once.
Put simply, I think 6 clubs chasing 4 pots of gold is far more desirable than 4 clubs chasing the same.
In the long term, we might find one or two clubs(ManU/ManC) stay ever-presents at the top table due to their foundations or wealth, but the remaining two places will be far more accessible to teams similar to ourselves.
Put simply, I think 6 clubs chasing 4 pots of gold is far more desirable than 4 clubs chasing the same.
In the long term, we might find one or two clubs(ManU/ManC) stay ever-presents at the top table due to their foundations or wealth, but the remaining two places will be far more accessible to teams similar to ourselves.
Brian Denton
62 Posted 30/09/2011 at 19:44:39
62 Posted 30/09/2011 at 19:44:39
Wayne, I think you are right to say 6 teams chasing 4 pots is better than 4 teams chasing 4 pots. However to all the self-righteous people out there, it has to be said that there is some consolation in noting that as a result Liverpool are no longer a shoe-in for one of the pots of gold.
Jimmy Stenn
63 Posted 30/09/2011 at 21:02:04
63 Posted 30/09/2011 at 21:02:04
Don't be an arsehole Wayne.
Fact is, Liverpool haven't finished 4th for a good few years now. We were getting closer to them, but then they go and spend nearly £100m on players.
The teams at the top have wealthy owners who put their hands in their pockets when needs be. We haven't, that's the main difference.
Fact is, Liverpool haven't finished 4th for a good few years now. We were getting closer to them, but then they go and spend nearly £100m on players.
The teams at the top have wealthy owners who put their hands in their pockets when needs be. We haven't, that's the main difference.
Wayne Smyth
64 Posted 01/10/2011 at 11:35:44
64 Posted 01/10/2011 at 11:35:44
Jimmy, it's true that the RS haven't finished in the top 4 for 2 seasons; did this coincide with Spurs and City spending big? I think so.
I'm no expert on the RS, so please correct me if this is wrong:
They may have spent £100m on new players, but they also recouped £50m on Torres. In addition in 2011 they got rid of a lot of squad players Babel, Jovanovic, Aquilani, Konchesky, Ngog, Pacheco, Ayala, Cole, Poulsen, either via transfer or loan deals. That's a lot of players off the wage bill, so the idea that their net spend is currently streets ahead of us is false I think.
If I'm honest, it doesn't seem to me like they are further ahead of us now than they were 2 years ago, regardless of the fact that they have been more active in the transfer market.
Based on today's evidence I don't think we're miles apart. They beat us only because of a shocking refereeing decision. Every season they're out of the Champions League is a season we will get closer to them.
Which brings us back to my original point: I still think the fact that 6 clubs are chasing 4 spots is better for us and clubs like us, rather than the status quo of 2007-08... and calling me an arsehole isn't going to persuade me otherwise.
I'm no expert on the RS, so please correct me if this is wrong:
They may have spent £100m on new players, but they also recouped £50m on Torres. In addition in 2011 they got rid of a lot of squad players Babel, Jovanovic, Aquilani, Konchesky, Ngog, Pacheco, Ayala, Cole, Poulsen, either via transfer or loan deals. That's a lot of players off the wage bill, so the idea that their net spend is currently streets ahead of us is false I think.
If I'm honest, it doesn't seem to me like they are further ahead of us now than they were 2 years ago, regardless of the fact that they have been more active in the transfer market.
Based on today's evidence I don't think we're miles apart. They beat us only because of a shocking refereeing decision. Every season they're out of the Champions League is a season we will get closer to them.
Which brings us back to my original point: I still think the fact that 6 clubs are chasing 4 spots is better for us and clubs like us, rather than the status quo of 2007-08... and calling me an arsehole isn't going to persuade me otherwise.
Jimmy Stenn
65 Posted 01/10/2011 at 22:51:10
65 Posted 01/10/2011 at 22:51:10
Fair enough mate. After todays shafting by the ref, I am in no mood to argue with fellow blues.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.
© ToffeeWeb
1 Posted 28/09/2011 at 15:04:17
I think you misunderstand what is usually meant by a wage cap (when it comes to sports, in any case). In that situation, you're looking at a total wage cap for the entire team, not individual salaries. Not that it's necessarily any more realistic to implement, but it doesn't entrench the "rich clubs can pay more" than you're suggesting.