|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
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? 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. What would be your end-goal then? Every single club has 1-2 players in the national team? No one should have the incentive to go out, build a strong team of local talent to try and succeed? All this "everyone-gets-a-turn" mentality does is stifle growth and innovation. It's a suckers game playing with a salary cap in a global context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xJust 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? No idea. They're probably will be less interest overseas as there would be less foreigners but I think their will be the same amount of interest in the UK because football is in their DNA. Cap or no cap, they'll still go to games. One thing that could happen is that the Premier League-Football League divide would close and some Football League sides could rise up the leagues and grow.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+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? 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. What would be your end-goal then? Every single club has 1-2 players in the national team? No one should have the incentive to go out, build a strong team of local talent to try and succeed? All this "everyone-gets-a-turn" mentality does is stifle growth and innovation. It's a suckers game playing with a salary cap in a global context. Have every club have the budget for spending on their squads. It's up to the clubs to make the most of what they have. Generally the best run clubs are the most successful. Melbourne Victory are a very well run club which is why they are successful. I want the best run clubs rewarded, not the club with the biggest wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xJust 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? No idea. They're probably will be less interest overseas as there would be less foreigners but I think their will be the same amount of interest in the UK because football is in their DNA. Cap or no cap, they'll still go to games. One thing that could happen is that the Premier League-Football League divide would close and some Football League sides could rise up the leagues and grow. Yeah true, revenue would plummet big time, all the English players would move abroad but some fans might enjoy it....especially at the new knock down ticket prices.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+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? 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. What would be your end-goal then? Every single club has 1-2 players in the national team? No one should have the incentive to go out, build a strong team of local talent to try and succeed? All this "everyone-gets-a-turn" mentality does is stifle growth and innovation. It's a suckers game playing with a salary cap in a global context. Have every club have the budget for spending on their squads. It's up to the clubs to make the most of what they have. Generally the best run clubs are the most successful. Melbourne Victory are a very well run club which is why they are successful. I want the best run clubs rewarded, not the club with the biggest wallet. Why not apply the argument to every other facet of the club then? Why is it fair that Victory have so much more money to spend on coaches, scouting, sports science etc. than Central Coast?
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xJust 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? No idea. They're probably will be less interest overseas as there would be less foreigners but I think their will be the same amount of interest in the UK because football is in their DNA. Cap or no cap, they'll still go to games. One thing that could happen is that the Premier League-Football League divide would close and some Football League sides could rise up the leagues and grow. Yeah true, revenue would plummet big time, all the English players would move abroad but some fans might enjoy it....especially at the new knock down ticket prices. If the EPL had a cap, it would be much more than 3 mil. The EPL is one of the best leagues in the world and all the clubs are rich so it would be a lot more. If the EPL had a cap, say 100 million, I think that could work and most English players will stay. We are not the EPL, our clubs don't have the funds they do and we aren't one of the world's best leagues with world class players so it's an unfair question. We need a 3 mil cap and unlike England, our best players going overseas is a good thing because those players are playing at a better level but also it allows another Australian player to play professional football.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+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? 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. What would be your end-goal then? Every single club has 1-2 players in the national team? No one should have the incentive to go out, build a strong team of local talent to try and succeed? All this "everyone-gets-a-turn" mentality does is stifle growth and innovation. It's a suckers game playing with a salary cap in a global context. Have every club have the budget for spending on their squads. It's up to the clubs to make the most of what they have. Generally the best run clubs are the most successful. Melbourne Victory are a very well run club which is why they are successful. I want the best run clubs rewarded, not the club with the biggest wallet. Why not apply the argument to every other facet of the club then? Why is it fair that Victory have so much more money to spend on coaches, scouting, sports science etc. than Central Coast? Coaches, sports science, scouting etc, all help a team but at the end of the day, the players are the ones that are on the field winning matches and it's the players on the pitch who win silverware not the sports scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xJust 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? No idea. They're probably will be less interest overseas as there would be less foreigners but I think their will be the same amount of interest in the UK because football is in their DNA. Cap or no cap, they'll still go to games. One thing that could happen is that the Premier League-Football League divide would close and some Football League sides could rise up the leagues and grow. Yeah true, revenue would plummet big time, all the English players would move abroad but some fans might enjoy it....especially at the new knock down ticket prices. If the EPL had a cap, it would be much more than 3 mil. The EPL is one of the best leagues in the world and all the clubs are rich so it would be a lot more. If the EPL had a cap, say 100 million, I think that could work and most English players will stay. We are not the EPL, our clubs don't have the funds they do and we aren't one of the world's best leagues with world class players so it's an unfair question. We need a 3 mil cap and unlike England, our best players going overseas is a good thing because those players are playing at a better level but also it allows another Australian player to play professional football. Even at $100 million, the EPL would lose the best players to Europe. So interest and revenue would plummet...from an international perspective anyway.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xJust 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? No idea. They're probably will be less interest overseas as there would be less foreigners but I think their will be the same amount of interest in the UK because football is in their DNA. Cap or no cap, they'll still go to games. One thing that could happen is that the Premier League-Football League divide would close and some Football League sides could rise up the leagues and grow. Yeah true, revenue would plummet big time, all the English players would move abroad but some fans might enjoy it....especially at the new knock down ticket prices. If the EPL had a cap, it would be much more than 3 mil. The EPL is one of the best leagues in the world and all the clubs are rich so it would be a lot more. If the EPL had a cap, say 100 million, I think that could work and most English players will stay. We are not the EPL, our clubs don't have the funds they do and we aren't one of the world's best leagues with world class players so it's an unfair question. We need a 3 mil cap and unlike England, our best players going overseas is a good thing because those players are playing at a better level but also it allows another Australian player to play professional football. Even at $100 million, the EPL would lose the best players to Europe. So interest and revenue would plummet...from an international perspective anyway. Idk why you are trying to make this comparison. We aren't the EPL, we don't have much (if at all) an overseas following have more foreign players than locals and and unlike the EPL we aren't one of the world's best leagues. We also don't have to contend with EU laws and regulations and to ignore all of these factors makes for a completely unfair comparison imo. If Brexit is a 'hard Brexit' and there are strict limits on foreign players etc, then I think they might think about having a cap and we can have a fair debate on the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
I'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. 20 million is far too large imo and would make the cap pointless. How is the cap "destroying the league" btw?
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap.
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+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. I agree with you. Cream meant the best run clubs. The richest clubs do not always win the comp - the best run and coached teams are. Even in our flawed salary cap system, City now and SFC during ADP years are clear examples. All the cap does now is create a false sense of equality.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+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. I agree with you. Cream meant the best run clubs. The richest clubs do not always win the comp - the best run and coached teams are. Even in our flawed salary cap system, City now and SFC during ADP years are clear examples. All the cap does now is create a false sense of equality. If there was no cap, Adelaide wouldn't have won anything but because we do have one, we have as much silverware as Victory and SFC over the last few seasons (4 trophies each).
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xJust 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? No idea. They're probably will be less interest overseas as there would be less foreigners but I think their will be the same amount of interest in the UK because football is in their DNA. Cap or no cap, they'll still go to games. One thing that could happen is that the Premier League-Football League divide would close and some Football League sides could rise up the leagues and grow. Yeah true, revenue would plummet big time, all the English players would move abroad but some fans might enjoy it....especially at the new knock down ticket prices. If the EPL had a cap, it would be much more than 3 mil. The EPL is one of the best leagues in the world and all the clubs are rich so it would be a lot more. If the EPL had a cap, say 100 million, I think that could work and most English players will stay. We are not the EPL, our clubs don't have the funds they do and we aren't one of the world's best leagues with world class players so it's an unfair question. We need a 3 mil cap and unlike England, our best players going overseas is a good thing because those players are playing at a better level but also it allows another Australian player to play professional football. Why is 3m the right figure? Why not more?
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xJust 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? No idea. They're probably will be less interest overseas as there would be less foreigners but I think their will be the same amount of interest in the UK because football is in their DNA. Cap or no cap, they'll still go to games. One thing that could happen is that the Premier League-Football League divide would close and some Football League sides could rise up the leagues and grow. Yeah true, revenue would plummet big time, all the English players would move abroad but some fans might enjoy it....especially at the new knock down ticket prices. If the EPL had a cap, it would be much more than 3 mil. The EPL is one of the best leagues in the world and all the clubs are rich so it would be a lot more. If the EPL had a cap, say 100 million, I think that could work and most English players will stay. We are not the EPL, our clubs don't have the funds they do and we aren't one of the world's best leagues with world class players so it's an unfair question. We need a 3 mil cap and unlike England, our best players going overseas is a good thing because those players are playing at a better level but also it allows another Australian player to play professional football. Why is 3m the right figure? Why not more? 3 million is approximately the current cap. Because the more the cap is raised, the more unequal the league will get.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+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. I agree with you. Cream meant the best run clubs. The richest clubs do not always win the comp - the best run and coached teams are. Even in our flawed salary cap system, City now and SFC during ADP years are clear examples. All the cap does now is create a false sense of equality. If there was no cap, Adelaide wouldn't have won anything but because we do have one, we have as much silverware as Victory and SFC over the last few seasons (4 trophies each). We don't know what Adelaide (or any other club) would or would not have won over the past few years. Based on our statement, trophies over the last few seasons seem to have been concentrated at 3 clubs (MV, SFC and AU). So if the cap was meant to provide equality, why is success concentrated at 3 clubs?
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xJust 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? No idea. They're probably will be less interest overseas as there would be less foreigners but I think their will be the same amount of interest in the UK because football is in their DNA. Cap or no cap, they'll still go to games. One thing that could happen is that the Premier League-Football League divide would close and some Football League sides could rise up the leagues and grow. Yeah true, revenue would plummet big time, all the English players would move abroad but some fans might enjoy it....especially at the new knock down ticket prices. If the EPL had a cap, it would be much more than 3 mil. The EPL is one of the best leagues in the world and all the clubs are rich so it would be a lot more. If the EPL had a cap, say 100 million, I think that could work and most English players will stay. We are not the EPL, our clubs don't have the funds they do and we aren't one of the world's best leagues with world class players so it's an unfair question. We need a 3 mil cap and unlike England, our best players going overseas is a good thing because those players are playing at a better level but also it allows another Australian player to play professional football. Why is 3m the right figure? Why not more? 3 million is approximately the current cap. Because the more the cap is raised, the more unequal the league will get. 3m is the current cap, but that doesn't mean it's the right figure. If raising the cap would make it unequal, why not lower it?
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+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. I agree with you. Cream meant the best run clubs. The richest clubs do not always win the comp - the best run and coached teams are. Even in our flawed salary cap system, City now and SFC during ADP years are clear examples. All the cap does now is create a false sense of equality. If there was no cap, Adelaide wouldn't have won anything but because we do have one, we have as much silverware as Victory and SFC over the last few seasons (4 trophies each). We don't know what Adelaide (or any other club) would or would not have won over the past few years. Based on our statement, trophies over the last few seasons seem to have been concentrated at 3 clubs (MV, SFC and AU). So if the cap was meant to provide equality, why is success concentrated at 3 clubs? Victory and Sydney have been successful because they are the best run clubs at the moment. Adelaide have been a bit lucky and won the double in the 2015/16 season in spite of the owners. Perth are in the box seat this season because they got their recruitment right. Having Popa as manager also has made an impact as well.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJust 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? No idea. They're probably will be less interest overseas as there would be less foreigners but I think their will be the same amount of interest in the UK because football is in their DNA. Cap or no cap, they'll still go to games. One thing that could happen is that the Premier League-Football League divide would close and some Football League sides could rise up the leagues and grow. Yeah true, revenue would plummet big time, all the English players would move abroad but some fans might enjoy it....especially at the new knock down ticket prices. If the EPL had a cap, it would be much more than 3 mil. The EPL is one of the best leagues in the world and all the clubs are rich so it would be a lot more. If the EPL had a cap, say 100 million, I think that could work and most English players will stay. We are not the EPL, our clubs don't have the funds they do and we aren't one of the world's best leagues with world class players so it's an unfair question. We need a 3 mil cap and unlike England, our best players going overseas is a good thing because those players are playing at a better level but also it allows another Australian player to play professional football. Why is 3m the right figure? Why not more? 3 million is approximately the current cap. Because the more the cap is raised, the more unequal the league will get. 3m is the current cap, but that doesn't mean it's the right figure. If raising the cap would make it unequal, why not lower it? Because the quality of the visa players will decrease.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+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. I agree with you. Cream meant the best run clubs. The richest clubs do not always win the comp - the best run and coached teams are. Even in our flawed salary cap system, City now and SFC during ADP years are clear examples. All the cap does now is create a false sense of equality. If there was no cap, Adelaide wouldn't have won anything but because we do have one, we have as much silverware as Victory and SFC over the last few seasons (4 trophies each). We don't know what Adelaide (or any other club) would or would not have won over the past few years. Based on our statement, trophies over the last few seasons seem to have been concentrated at 3 clubs (MV, SFC and AU). So if the cap was meant to provide equality, why is success concentrated at 3 clubs? Victory and Sydney have been successful because they are the best run clubs at the moment. Adelaide have been a bit lucky and won the double in the 2015/16 season in spite of the owners. Perth are in the box seat this season because they got their recruitment right. Having Popa as manager also has made an impact as well. So being a well run club, luck, good recruitment and a good manager has more to do with trophies than being rich. So why do we need a cap?
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJust 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? No idea. They're probably will be less interest overseas as there would be less foreigners but I think their will be the same amount of interest in the UK because football is in their DNA. Cap or no cap, they'll still go to games. One thing that could happen is that the Premier League-Football League divide would close and some Football League sides could rise up the leagues and grow. Yeah true, revenue would plummet big time, all the English players would move abroad but some fans might enjoy it....especially at the new knock down ticket prices. If the EPL had a cap, it would be much more than 3 mil. The EPL is one of the best leagues in the world and all the clubs are rich so it would be a lot more. If the EPL had a cap, say 100 million, I think that could work and most English players will stay. We are not the EPL, our clubs don't have the funds they do and we aren't one of the world's best leagues with world class players so it's an unfair question. We need a 3 mil cap and unlike England, our best players going overseas is a good thing because those players are playing at a better level but also it allows another Australian player to play professional football. Why is 3m the right figure? Why not more? 3 million is approximately the current cap. Because the more the cap is raised, the more unequal the league will get. 3m is the current cap, but that doesn't mean it's the right figure. If raising the cap would make it unequal, why not lower it? Because the quality of the visa players will decrease. So lets increase the cap to increase visa player quality! The point is, 3m is an arbitrary number which is affecting the player market. It also isn't even in force with exempt players, loyalty increases, salary banking, ACL allowances, etc etc. As patjennings was saying, the current cap arrangement is flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+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. I agree with you. Cream meant the best run clubs. The richest clubs do not always win the comp - the best run and coached teams are. Even in our flawed salary cap system, City now and SFC during ADP years are clear examples. All the cap does now is create a false sense of equality. If there was no cap, Adelaide wouldn't have won anything but because we do have one, we have as much silverware as Victory and SFC over the last few seasons (4 trophies each). We don't know what Adelaide (or any other club) would or would not have won over the past few years. Based on our statement, trophies over the last few seasons seem to have been concentrated at 3 clubs (MV, SFC and AU). So if the cap was meant to provide equality, why is success concentrated at 3 clubs? Victory and Sydney have been successful because they are the best run clubs at the moment. Adelaide have been a bit lucky and won the double in the 2015/16 season in spite of the owners. Perth are in the box seat this season because they got their recruitment right. Having Popa as manager also has made an impact as well. So being a well run club, luck, good recruitment and a good manager has more to do with trophies than being rich. So why do we need a cap? Being rich buys trophies which is why the richest clubs dominate nearly every league. We need a cap to put everyone on the same playing field. Then it's up to the club to make the most of what they have. The best run clubs will be successful most of the time. I want the best run clubs to be rewarded, not the club that is the richest.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. Leicester is rare but clubs can find success without money. But on your point, there has been a fair spread of titles in those comps. In Korea, during the professional era (from 1983), 9 clubs have been champions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Korean_football_champions#Professional_era_(1983%E2%80%93present)In China, during the CSL era (from 2005), 7 clubs have been champions (although Evergrande dominated during the Lippi era) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_football_champions#Super_League_champions_(2004%E2%80%93present)
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+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. I agree with you. Cream meant the best run clubs. The richest clubs do not always win the comp - the best run and coached teams are. Even in our flawed salary cap system, City now and SFC during ADP years are clear examples. All the cap does now is create a false sense of equality. If there was no cap, Adelaide wouldn't have won anything but because we do have one, we have as much silverware as Victory and SFC over the last few seasons (4 trophies each). We don't know what Adelaide (or any other club) would or would not have won over the past few years. Based on our statement, trophies over the last few seasons seem to have been concentrated at 3 clubs (MV, SFC and AU). So if the cap was meant to provide equality, why is success concentrated at 3 clubs? Victory and Sydney have been successful because they are the best run clubs at the moment. Adelaide have been a bit lucky and won the double in the 2015/16 season in spite of the owners. Perth are in the box seat this season because they got their recruitment right. Having Popa as manager also has made an impact as well. So being a well run club, luck, good recruitment and a good manager has more to do with trophies than being rich. So why do we need a cap? Being rich buys trophies which is why the richest clubs dominate nearly every league. We need a cap to put everyone on the same playing field. Then it's up to the club to make the most of what they have. The best run clubs will be successful most of the time. I want the best run clubs to be rewarded, not the club that is the richest. Money helps you buy trophies but throwing money at problem does not mean success. You also say nearly every league. What are the exceptions? We can look at those... More importantly, our current cap system does not put everyone on the same playing field. It's not doing that job at all. It's actually damaging football development at the moment (successful teams are ripped apart at the end of the season). That's the reason why I'm against it.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+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. I agree with you. Cream meant the best run clubs. The richest clubs do not always win the comp - the best run and coached teams are. Even in our flawed salary cap system, City now and SFC during ADP years are clear examples. All the cap does now is create a false sense of equality. If there was no cap, Adelaide wouldn't have won anything but because we do have one, we have as much silverware as Victory and SFC over the last few seasons (4 trophies each). We don't know what Adelaide (or any other club) would or would not have won over the past few years. Based on our statement, trophies over the last few seasons seem to have been concentrated at 3 clubs (MV, SFC and AU). So if the cap was meant to provide equality, why is success concentrated at 3 clubs? Victory and Sydney have been successful because they are the best run clubs at the moment. Adelaide have been a bit lucky and won the double in the 2015/16 season in spite of the owners. Perth are in the box seat this season because they got their recruitment right. Having Popa as manager also has made an impact as well. So being a well run club, luck, good recruitment and a good manager has more to do with trophies than being rich. So why do we need a cap? Being rich buys trophies which is why the richest clubs dominate nearly every league. We need a cap to put everyone on the same playing field. Then it's up to the club to make the most of what they have. The best run clubs will be successful most of the time. I want the best run clubs to be rewarded, not the club that is the richest. Money helps you buy trophies but throwing money at problem does not mean success. You also say nearly every league. What are the exceptions? We can look at those... More importantly, our current cap system does not put everyone on the same playing field. It's not doing that job at all. It's actually damaging football development at the moment (successful teams are ripped apart at the end of the season). That's the reason why I'm against it. I don’t buy the argument that successful teams get ripped apart. Sydney have kept a lot of their side over the last few years, Victory have strengthened after last season as well, Newcastle have kept most of their side from last season. the only side that has been ripped apart was ours and even then those players would have left regardless of whether we won the league or not.
|
|
|
|