|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThe only way it will grow is if we open it up and we allow the top teams to bring in revenue to share with everyone, through broadcast revenue and through transfer fees. Crowds aren't going to get any worse than they are now. Trickle down doesn't work and never has. It works in a boom bust cycle and after a while a recession occurs. This is how the Great Depression and Great Recession occurred. It works if you implement policies that ensure resources are redistributed. Unless the whole world plays under a $3million salary cap then we are just tying our hands behind our back and saying that we don't want to be part of global revenue streams. But that never ends up happening. It works in theory but not when it's actually implemented. It always exacerbates inequality. So what is your idea to increase revenue given that our TV revenue is likely to fall by about 50% Advertise the league and market it more. Make tickets cheaper. Some of the prices (especially Perth and City's) are outrageous. Pick better time slots that suit the fans. The clubs own their own IP's. Clubs keep all ticket and merchandise profits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ?
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI don't get people saying that the big clubs spending big on quality players would be a bad thing . If you have a few teams who are very good ...others will have to lift their games to compete. I think it would raise he standard of the league overall . It would also mean our young Aussie players would be up against much better players each week. This would be great for our National team chances. It would also get crowds more interested in watching as the standard raises. At present clubs can spend what they want on good coaches ...but they don't ....why ? The better coaches don't want to come here. I think we could attract far better coaches to our league if they know they can buy decent imports and produce better teams . Also clubs currently probably figure why spend a fortune on a coach only to have him coaching below par players ? I see no downsides to getting rid of the cap ( I would have financial prudence rules along the lines of the Euro model though). If we have a "few teams" (I think only 3 will be very good) are very good then the rest of the teams will be weaker as a result. We're not like Europe where we can buy a heap of overseas players. This means that the cost of Australian players will increase and clubs WON'T be able to improve as they don't have the funds to compete because the richest clubs will monopolise all of the best Australian talent. The 3 top teams will improve but the rest of the league will be weaker as a result thus reducing the quality of the league. Crowds for most teams will drop as the standard of football will be lower as well as most clubs being stuck in mid-table before eventually being relegated. We don't need to attract foreign coaches either, we need to give more Australian coaches a chance. Garbage With 18 Australian players per club you are effectively saying there are only 54 good players in Australia. The whole point of the 4+1 rule is to prevent teams from buying the league. They must instead use local talent which keeps things more even Yet you are proposing that the opposite is true The best local players are still a lot better than the worst and clubs will still buy the league which will result in a sizeable increase in player wages which the poorer clubs won't be able to compete with. Saying that clubs can't buy the league with the 3+1 rule is ridiculous and one of the dumbest things I've seen posted on here. Thats more of a you problem for not being able to understand how internationally tried and tested methods work The reason the Scotland scenario exists in Scotland is because the big 2 clubs can buy in international talent that the other teams cant afford. So they cant compete A 3+1 rule means that whether a team succeeds or fails depends on using local talent. Its absolutely ridiculous to think there is a massive gap in our top players. We know that the best of the best will be over seas. And its reasonable to think the top 100 - 150 players are competitive. How else are we going to get to 16 clubs and / or a second division if there is only enough talent for 3 clubs? Leagues like Japan and Korea dont have a salary cap. They have a 3+1 rule. Where are their 3 teams that can only win the league and nobody else?
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI don't get people saying that the big clubs spending big on quality players would be a bad thing . If you have a few teams who are very good ...others will have to lift their games to compete. I think it would raise he standard of the league overall . It would also mean our young Aussie players would be up against much better players each week. This would be great for our National team chances. It would also get crowds more interested in watching as the standard raises. At present clubs can spend what they want on good coaches ...but they don't ....why ? The better coaches don't want to come here. I think we could attract far better coaches to our league if they know they can buy decent imports and produce better teams . Also clubs currently probably figure why spend a fortune on a coach only to have him coaching below par players ? I see no downsides to getting rid of the cap ( I would have financial prudence rules along the lines of the Euro model though). If we have a "few teams" (I think only 3 will be very good) are very good then the rest of the teams will be weaker as a result. We're not like Europe where we can buy a heap of overseas players. This means that the cost of Australian players will increase and clubs WON'T be able to improve as they don't have the funds to compete because the richest clubs will monopolise all of the best Australian talent. The 3 top teams will improve but the rest of the league will be weaker as a result thus reducing the quality of the league. Crowds for most teams will drop as the standard of football will be lower as well as most clubs being stuck in mid-table before eventually being relegated. We don't need to attract foreign coaches either, we need to give more Australian coaches a chance. Garbage With 18 Australian players per club you are effectively saying there are only 54 good players in Australia. The whole point of the 4+1 rule is to prevent teams from buying the league. They must instead use local talent which keeps things more even Yet you are proposing that the opposite is true The best local players are still a lot better than the worst and clubs will still buy the league which will result in a sizeable increase in player wages which the poorer clubs won't be able to compete with. Saying that clubs can't buy the league with the 3+1 rule is ridiculous and one of the dumbest things I've seen posted on here. Thats more of a you problem for not being able to understand how internationally tried and tested methods work The reason the Scotland scenario exists in Scotland is because the big 2 clubs can buy in international talent that the other teams cant afford. So they cant compete A 3+1 rule means that whether a team succeeds or fails depends on using local talent. Its absolutely ridiculous to think there is a massive gap in our top players. We know that the best of the best will be over seas. And its reasonable to think the top 100 - 150 players are competitive. How else are we going to get to 16 clubs and / or a second division if there is only enough talent for 3 clubs? Leagues like Japan and Korea dont have a salary cap. They have a 3+1 rule. Where are their 3 teams that can only win the league and nobody else? China - Guangzhou won 7 league titles in a row before finishing 2nd last season. China has a salary cap and a wage cap for domestic players as of this season. Korea- Jeonbuk have won 4 of the last 5 league titles. The only year they didn't win was because they got a points deduction. The Japanese league is the only one that is competitive.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets?
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x
China - Guangzhou won 7 league titles in a row before finishing 2nd last season. China has a salary cap and a wage cap for domestic players as of this season.
Probably has more to do with the Chinese Government wanting to control the flow of capital out of the country (in the form of excessive transfer fees and wages)than trying to equalise the competition.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs. Which clubs in the A-league would that be, they are all owned by multi-millionaires or billionaires, every one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x
China - Guangzhou won 7 league titles in a row before finishing 2nd last season. China has a salary cap and a wage cap for domestic players as of this season.
Probably has more to do with the Chinese Government wanting to control the flow of capital out of the country (in the form of excessive transfer fees and wages)than trying to equalise the competition. Just to clarify this, the Chinese tax office was upset about players using overseas bank accounts to receive their wages at one point - I'll try and find the media reports on it and post them in here.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xNot all the good players will go to the big clubs, some will opt for guaranteed playing time at smaller clubs over playing off the bench/being a rotation player at a big club. The occasional player will but most will want to be at one of the few clubs that could actually win silverware, even if they are a bench/squaddie. Demonstrably untrue. Go have a look at the national teams of China, Japan and Korea. All of these leagues have operated without a salary cap thus far. Of the domestic-based national team players (the "best" local players, you would assume), they are spread out over a number of clubs. You're suggesting that Sydney, Victory and City will hoover up all local talent and leave the other clubs with scraps, when this isn't in the case overseas. All of their national teams pick players from the variety of domestic clubs, so why do you think that if it doesn't occur overseas it is going to occur here? Just to add to that. Aussie players with ambition will push to Europe. That's not gonna make it easy for 3 big clubs. Look at City now. With all their support and financial firepower, they are rubbish. Also, even with the salary cap in place now, SFC and MV are consistently in the top 4. The current system is broken and we're better off adopting a model like the rest of the world rather than constantly trying to patch up a broken system. Sydney spent a few years in mediocrity. Victory have been successful because they're the best run club imo. CCM have struggled because they are poorly run and most of their employees who make the big decisions are incompetent. Didn't Perth struggled in the early years of the league due to issues off the pitch? So you're saying that regardless of salary cap, cream still rises to the top? What's the point of the cap then?
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs. Which clubs in the A-league would that be, they are all owned by multi-millionaires or billionaires, every one of them. Victory, City, SFC. Duh. Everyone knows they can spend more than the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xNot all the good players will go to the big clubs, some will opt for guaranteed playing time at smaller clubs over playing off the bench/being a rotation player at a big club. The occasional player will but most will want to be at one of the few clubs that could actually win silverware, even if they are a bench/squaddie. Demonstrably untrue. Go have a look at the national teams of China, Japan and Korea. All of these leagues have operated without a salary cap thus far. Of the domestic-based national team players (the "best" local players, you would assume), they are spread out over a number of clubs. You're suggesting that Sydney, Victory and City will hoover up all local talent and leave the other clubs with scraps, when this isn't in the case overseas. All of their national teams pick players from the variety of domestic clubs, so why do you think that if it doesn't occur overseas it is going to occur here? Just to add to that. Aussie players with ambition will push to Europe. That's not gonna make it easy for 3 big clubs. Look at City now. With all their support and financial firepower, they are rubbish. Also, even with the salary cap in place now, SFC and MV are consistently in the top 4. The current system is broken and we're better off adopting a model like the rest of the world rather than constantly trying to patch up a broken system. Sydney spent a few years in mediocrity. Victory have been successful because they're the best run club imo. CCM have struggled because they are poorly run and most of their employees who make the big decisions are incompetent. Didn't Perth struggled in the early years of the league due to issues off the pitch? So you're saying that regardless of salary cap, cream still rises to the top? What's the point of the cap then? I never said that. I said the best run clubs will be at the top, not the club with the biggest wallet. And by cream I assume you mean the richest clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
robstazzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.4K,
Visits: 0
|
I'm strongly in favour of fucking off the pointless salary cap. I'm also strongly against increasing the number of foreigners, in fact if it was up to me I'd reduce it to 3 + 1 just like it is by the AFC. At least that way no club will be in a position where they have to leave one of their foreigners out.
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs. Which clubs in the A-league would that be, they are all owned by multi-millionaires or billionaires, every one of them. Victory, City, SFC. Duh. Everyone knows they can spend more than the rest. WSW, Perth, MSW, Brisbane, MU
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'm strongly in favour of fucking off the pointless salary cap. I'm also strongly against increasing the number of foreigners, in fact if it was up to me I'd reduce it to 3 + 1 just like it is by the AFC. At least that way no club will be in a position where they have to leave one of their foreigners out. The 3+1 rule is only in effect for the acl only. Most leagues in Asia have different rules on imports though.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs. Which clubs in the A-league would that be, they are all owned by multi-millionaires or billionaires, every one of them. Victory, City, SFC. Duh. Everyone knows they can spend more than the rest. WSW, Perth, MSW, Brisbane, MU WSW - I think if there was no cap they wouldn't be able to match the three clubs I mentioned but could spend a bit. Perth - Spend a little less than WSW MSW and WU - we have no idea and won't know for a few years. Brisbane - no chance.
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs. Which clubs in the A-league would that be, they are all owned by multi-millionaires or billionaires, every one of them. Victory, City, SFC. Duh. Everyone knows they can spend more than the rest. WSW, Perth, MSW, Brisbane, MU WSW - I think if there was no cap they wouldn't be able to match the three clubs I mentioned but could spend a bit. Perth - Spend a little less than WSW MSW and WU - we have no idea and won't know for a few years. Brisbane - no chance. If Brisbane was playing in a genuine market, with the entire state, that has the 2nd highest participation numbers, to themselves....they would be a powerhouse. You will probably end up with 3 or 4 more Queensland teams by way of a second division...but still. And WSW are still potentially the biggest club in the league, for me.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs. Which clubs in the A-league would that be, they are all owned by multi-millionaires or billionaires, every one of them. Victory, City, SFC. Duh. Everyone knows they can spend more than the rest. WSW, Perth, MSW, Brisbane, MU WSW - I think if there was no cap they wouldn't be able to match the three clubs I mentioned but could spend a bit. Perth - Spend a little less than WSW MSW and WU - we have no idea and won't know for a few years. Brisbane - no chance. WSW directors have spent $15m recently on construction of the first stage of their academy so I don't think they will be afraid to spend on players. They might want to prioritise Stage 2 of their training facilities first though. I think its another $10m or so.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs. Which clubs in the A-league would that be, they are all owned by multi-millionaires or billionaires, every one of them. Victory, City, SFC. Duh. Everyone knows they can spend more than the rest. WSW, Perth, MSW, Brisbane, MU WSW - I think if there was no cap they wouldn't be able to match the three clubs I mentioned but could spend a bit. Perth - Spend a little less than WSW MSW and WU - we have no idea and won't know for a few years. Brisbane - no chance. If Brisbane was playing in a genuine market, with the entire state, that has the 2nd highest participation numbers, to themselves....they would be a powerhouse. You will probably end up with 3 or 4 more Queensland teams by way of a second division...but still. Brisbane has been run on a shoestring budget over the last few years and have struggled to pay wages, struggled to pay for laundry, couldn't afford to play NPL games in North QLD and couldn't keep their numbers on their jerseys. How could you possibly say that they could compete for silverware without a cap?
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs. Which clubs in the A-league would that be, they are all owned by multi-millionaires or billionaires, every one of them. Victory, City, SFC. Duh. Everyone knows they can spend more than the rest. WSW, Perth, MSW, Brisbane, MU WSW - I think if there was no cap they wouldn't be able to match the three clubs I mentioned but could spend a bit. Perth - Spend a little less than WSW MSW and WU - we have no idea and won't know for a few years. Brisbane - no chance. And WSW are still potentially the biggest club in the league, for me. I don't even consider them to be a big club anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs. Which clubs in the A-league would that be, they are all owned by multi-millionaires or billionaires, every one of them. Victory, City, SFC. Duh. Everyone knows they can spend more than the rest. WSW, Perth, MSW, Brisbane, MU WSW - I think if there was no cap they wouldn't be able to match the three clubs I mentioned but could spend a bit. Perth - Spend a little less than WSW MSW and WU - we have no idea and won't know for a few years. Brisbane - no chance. And WSW are still potentially the biggest club in the league, for me. I don't even consider them to be a big club anymore. They have the capacity just like every other club in the A-league to spend up big. Isnt Newcastle also owned by the Ledman group, WSW is owned by Lederer and the guy who owned Pirtek. It would still remain competitive in the A-league with the only difference being a better league with better players. You honestly can't say it would be dominated by 3-4 clubs and even if it was, so what.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs. Which clubs in the A-league would that be, they are all owned by multi-millionaires or billionaires, every one of them. Victory, City, SFC. Duh. Everyone knows they can spend more than the rest. WSW, Perth, MSW, Brisbane, MU WSW - I think if there was no cap they wouldn't be able to match the three clubs I mentioned but could spend a bit. Perth - Spend a little less than WSW MSW and WU - we have no idea and won't know for a few years. Brisbane - no chance. And WSW are still potentially the biggest club in the league, for me. I don't even consider them to be a big club anymore. They have the capacity just like every other club in the A-league to spend up big. Isnt Newcastle also owned by the Ledman group, WSW is owned by Lederer and the guy who owned Pirtek. It would still remain competitive in the A-league with the only difference being a better league with better players. You honestly can't say it would be dominated by 3-4 clubs and even if it was, so what. Yes you can and I think the league will become un-competitive like most Asian non-capped leagues. (Japan being the exception) Also Newy will be slashing their budget as Martin Lee has been hit very hard by Trump's tariffs. I'll try and find the article. Lee wanted to do it this season but McKinna persuaded him to hold off for a year. Edit: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football/trump-tariff-war-risks-shooting-down-newcastle-jets/news-story/401fb854e4ff0656e45028c381610aea
|
|
|
|
|
robstazzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI'm strongly in favour of fucking off the pointless salary cap. I'm also strongly against increasing the number of foreigners, in fact if it was up to me I'd reduce it to 3 + 1 just like it is by the AFC. At least that way no club will be in a position where they have to leave one of their foreigners out. The 3+1 rule is only in effect for the acl only. Most leagues in Asia have different rules on imports though. Yeh I know that I'm just saying I would like to adopt that rule to our league so when clubs qualify for the ACL they won't need to cut anyone. I think 4 foreigners is enough with 1 being from Asia.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xNot all the good players will go to the big clubs, some will opt for guaranteed playing time at smaller clubs over playing off the bench/being a rotation player at a big club. The occasional player will but most will want to be at one of the few clubs that could actually win silverware, even if they are a bench/squaddie. Demonstrably untrue. Go have a look at the national teams of China, Japan and Korea. All of these leagues have operated without a salary cap thus far. Of the domestic-based national team players (the "best" local players, you would assume), they are spread out over a number of clubs. You're suggesting that Sydney, Victory and City will hoover up all local talent and leave the other clubs with scraps, when this isn't in the case overseas. All of their national teams pick players from the variety of domestic clubs, so why do you think that if it doesn't occur overseas it is going to occur here? Chinese NT has 7 players from Guangzhou Evergrande with 6 more being called up in the last year. Beijing Gouan has 4. Shandong has 4. Shanghai SIPG has 2. Had 3 before Wu Lei moved to Spain. Half of the Chinese NT are from two clubs and 15 of 23 players are from 3 clubs. I'd say that's a pretty good split. Sure, the top players tend to play for the top teams, but there is certainly some quality local players sprinkled throughout the rest of the league. The fact that over half the CSL is represented in the national team is encouraging and disproves the narrative that the big clubs will just buy up all local talent and leave the scraps for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
patjennings
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.6K,
Visits: 0
|
The point is that there are so many exemptions now that it is not a salary capped league. What we have now is something that doesn't fit any criteria.
1) Clubs can go broke by spending so much outside the cap it is ridiculous. So it is not there for that.
2) The exemptions also mean that as an equalisation method. It doesn't work
.
3) Clubs that can afford to invest across the board like Victory so that they can compete against the big Asian clubs in the ACL can't invest across the squad the way they could if it wasn't there.
If you want a salary capped league have one - otherwise get rid of the cap all together. At the moment we are in the worst of positions.
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs. Which clubs in the A-league would that be, they are all owned by multi-millionaires or billionaires, every one of them. Victory, City, SFC. Duh. Everyone knows they can spend more than the rest. WSW, Perth, MSW, Brisbane, MU WSW - I think if there was no cap they wouldn't be able to match the three clubs I mentioned but could spend a bit. Perth - Spend a little less than WSW MSW and WU - we have no idea and won't know for a few years. Brisbane - no chance. If Brisbane was playing in a genuine market, with the entire state, that has the 2nd highest participation numbers, to themselves....they would be a powerhouse. You will probably end up with 3 or 4 more Queensland teams by way of a second division...but still. Brisbane has been run on a shoestring budget over the last few years and have struggled to pay wages, struggled to pay for laundry, couldn't afford to play NPL games in North QLD and couldn't keep their numbers on their jerseys. How could you possibly say that they could compete for silverware without a cap? Yeah, because you are reacting to clubs as they are in this backwards growth model...WSW are the same size as CCM. Just answer me this honestly, what would be the effect on the EPL if you introduced a $3million salary cap? Would revenue, crowds and interest increase, decrease or stay the same?
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xNot all the good players will go to the big clubs, some will opt for guaranteed playing time at smaller clubs over playing off the bench/being a rotation player at a big club. The occasional player will but most will want to be at one of the few clubs that could actually win silverware, even if they are a bench/squaddie. Demonstrably untrue. Go have a look at the national teams of China, Japan and Korea. All of these leagues have operated without a salary cap thus far. Of the domestic-based national team players (the "best" local players, you would assume), they are spread out over a number of clubs. You're suggesting that Sydney, Victory and City will hoover up all local talent and leave the other clubs with scraps, when this isn't in the case overseas. All of their national teams pick players from the variety of domestic clubs, so why do you think that if it doesn't occur overseas it is going to occur here? Chinese NT has 7 players from Guangzhou Evergrande with 6 more being called up in the last year. Beijing Gouan has 4. Shandong has 4. Shanghai SIPG has 2. Had 3 before Wu Lei moved to Spain. Half of the Chinese NT are from two clubs and 15 of 23 players are from 3 clubs. I'd say that's a pretty good split. Sure, the top players tend to play for the top teams, but there is certainly some quality local players sprinkled throughout the rest of the league. The fact that over half the CSL is represented in the national team is encouraging and disproves the narrative that the big clubs will just buy up all local talent and leave the scraps for everyone. I think it proves it. 15 out of 23 at 3 clubs show that these club have an obvios monopoly on tf the talent. The fact that only 1 out of 23 play outside of China obviously shows that Chinese players are ridiculously overpaid.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBecause they want a payrise. The clubs still want the cap and I'll think it will stay. Are you saying players are under paid ? No but they will always want a payrise regardless. So do the owners just fold to players demands or do they look at what players they can fit in their budgets? Depends on the owner. Either way the richest clubs will end up stockpiling most of the best domestic players because they can pay higher wages than the other clubs. Which clubs in the A-league would that be, they are all owned by multi-millionaires or billionaires, every one of them. Victory, City, SFC. Duh. Everyone knows they can spend more than the rest. WSW, Perth, MSW, Brisbane, MU WSW - I think if there was no cap they wouldn't be able to match the three clubs I mentioned but could spend a bit. Perth - Spend a little less than WSW MSW and WU - we have no idea and won't know for a few years. Brisbane - no chance. If Brisbane was playing in a genuine market, with the entire state, that has the 2nd highest participation numbers, to themselves....they would be a powerhouse. You will probably end up with 3 or 4 more Queensland teams by way of a second division...but still. Brisbane has been run on a shoestring budget over the last few years and have struggled to pay wages, struggled to pay for laundry, couldn't afford to play NPL games in North QLD and couldn't keep their numbers on their jerseys. How could you possibly say that they could compete for silverware without a cap? Yeah, because you are reacting to clubs as they are in this backwards growth model...WSW are the same size as CCM. No, I don’t think they are the same size as CCM. They just aren’t a big club anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Just answer me this honestly, what would be the effect on the EPL if you introduced a $3million salary cap? Would revenue, crowds and interest increase, decrease or stay the same?
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|