Oldham Althletic

[StillSpike]

Not too sure what the answer is. Clubs, like Orient, rely on handouts from rich benefactors. We have seen our share of the good and the bad. Remove the rich owners and football would be reduced to a semi-pro sport below the premiership and maybe the Championship.

What is your suggestion.

How about - recognise that the Top tiers of the sport rely upon the pyramid below them, redistribute the billions upon billions of pounds flooding into the game further down the pyramid **, so that Clubs like the Orient and Oldham and Bury are not reliant on sugar-daddies, and actually break even or turn a profit. If the clubs below the Championship have enough income (in this vastly wealthy game) then there's no reason at all that they should go semi-pro. The problem isn't the wealth - it's the distribution.

At the moment, the "fit and proper persons" test is really "do they have some cash". If being able to support a loss-making club is less important (because the club breaks even or even turns a profit), then more people would be willing to take them on - so you could have a meaningful "Fit and proper person" test.

** How do you redistribute the money further down the pyramid? Couple of thoughts.

Spread the TV cash further down.

Put an absolute cap on the number of players any club can register (say, 35) to stop the Prem clubs hoovering up all the young talent. The youngsters would then have to sign for clubs lower down the leagues until they're good enough to earn a transfer (i.e. cash flowing down). This measure in itself would serve to suppress wage figures as more players would be chasing fewer spots.

In other words, turn the myth known as "trickle down" into reality. It would need wresting control of the game from the Premier League, and for the FA and EFl to understand that their job is to ensure the wellbeing of the whole sport, and not just to kowtow to the EPL.

This point came up on a podcast. Some football financial lecturer said this could cause issues. The reason being some clubs would use this money and more and try to buy success. Ultimately it could lead to more financially in trouble clubs. In effect more easy income likely to result in more silly spending.

I have no idea if this is correct but the argument was compelling.

I'd agree that while the finances are so skewed in favour of the Premier League then there's always the temptation for owners in the Championship to bet the farm on trying to get up there - that's another reason for trying to level things up I'd have thought, rather than just accept the current worsening situation.

The absolute cap on the number of players registered by any one club (a "roster-limit") would go a long way towards solving the problem in my opinion. You don't need to introduce salary caps etc, because the roster-limit itself would have a suppressing effect on salaries. That in turn would mean that EFL clubs wouldn't / couldn't silly spend, because they can only buy/hire so many players - and we've already suppressed salaries.

Stopping Prem clubs from player hoarding would automatically create trickle down, as they'd have to pay to get their talent. For example, a young London player starts his career as one of Orient's 35 players. In a few years, if he's good enough to move up, QPR pay Orient for him and include him as one of their squad (trickle down). As he develops, maybe Chelsea decide he's so good, that they make room for him in their roster, and pay QPR for him (again, trickle down). The Top Clubs no longer have to worry about trying to crowbar their "U23" teams into EFL Trophy competitions, because they won't have massive ranks of youngsters sitting around needing competitive football. EFL clubs no longer need to try to get loans of young talent from higher up, because those young players are available to sign at sensible pay levels (rather than sitting around at top clubs, on salaries that you and I could only dream of, without any prospect of 1st team football)

The FA could do this - if it had the will.

[POSHO]

No they couldn't, because they are the puppets of the premier elite. Perhaps, it's our fault because we want to be associated with some sort of success in our mediocre lives so we attach ourselves to sport and forget about enjoying the game
You only have to view the vitriol on this board

[tuffers#1]

There is no football pyramid with footballing elite in this country.
There is the F.A premier league ( Elite ) then
Everyone else.

They do not need clubs below the premier league to survive.

Its unfortunate but it is the way it is.

Very true and time the FA and EFL made a stand and let the Premier League go off and do its own thing. From there they can introduce salary capping and put proper provisions in place to safeguard football clubs from going under (such as owners having to put a bond up front every season, laws changed to ensure owners are held accountable). The players ain't going to like it and we may even see strike action like what happened in the NHL when they introduced salary caps. But they need to understand that if more clubs go under there is going to be less clubs for them to join and a lesser chance of earning decent dough.

Why would the F.A make a stand with the EFL .
The F.A's Golden Goose is the Premier League.

It is up to the EFL to find a solution if it wants to .

If more Clubs go Under there will be plenty like Wrexham Stockport Chesterfield
Harrogate Fylde Solihull ready to take there place.

Just to be clear its not something i wish to see, its just what will happen.

What every club needs is to be lucky & have owners who value the club .

[LittleMate]

About the squad capping: Its kind of coming in the form of limiting loan moves. I'm sure Chelsea have something like 43 players out on loan. In the next 2-3 seasons this will be reduced to something like 8.

FWIW I don't think clubs will fold in the future - they will just adjust their budgets in the way they had to when the ITV/Setanta deal fell apart 15 years ago.

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

How about - recognise that the Top tiers of the sport rely upon the pyramid below them, redistribute the billions upon billions of pounds flooding into the game further down the pyramid **, so that Clubs like the Orient and Oldham and Bury are not reliant on sugar-daddies, and actually break even or turn a profit. If the clubs below the Championship have enough income (in this vastly wealthy game) then there's no reason at all that they should go semi-pro. The problem isn't the wealth - it's the distribution.

At the moment, the "fit and proper persons" test is really "do they have some cash". If being able to support a loss-making club is less important (because the club breaks even or even turns a profit), then more people would be willing to take them on - so you could have a meaningful "Fit and proper person" test.

** How do you redistribute the money further down the pyramid? Couple of thoughts.

Spread the TV cash further down.

Put an absolute cap on the number of players any club can register (say, 35) to stop the Prem clubs hoovering up all the young talent. The youngsters would then have to sign for clubs lower down the leagues until they're good enough to earn a transfer (i.e. cash flowing down). This measure in itself would serve to suppress wage figures as more players would be chasing fewer spots.

In other words, turn the myth known as "trickle down" into reality. It would need wresting control of the game from the Premier League, and for the FA and EFl to understand that their job is to ensure the wellbeing of the whole sport, and not just to kowtow to the EPL.

This point came up on a podcast. Some football financial lecturer said this could cause issues. The reason being some clubs would use this money and more and try to buy success. Ultimately it could lead to more financially in trouble clubs. In effect more easy income likely to result in more silly spending.

I have no idea if this is correct but the argument was compelling.

I'd agree that while the finances are so skewed in favour of the Premier League then there's always the temptation for owners in the Championship to bet the farm on trying to get up there - that's another reason for trying to level things up I'd have thought, rather than just accept the current worsening situation.

The absolute cap on the number of players registered by any one club (a "roster-limit") would go a long way towards solving the problem in my opinion. You don't need to introduce salary caps etc, because the roster-limit itself would have a suppressing effect on salaries. That in turn would mean that EFL clubs wouldn't / couldn't silly spend, because they can only buy/hire so many players - and we've already suppressed salaries.

Stopping Prem clubs from player hoarding would automatically create trickle down, as they'd have to pay to get their talent. For example, a young London player starts his career as one of Orient's 35 players. In a few years, if he's good enough to move up, QPR pay Orient for him and include him as one of their squad (trickle down). As he develops, maybe Chelsea decide he's so good, that they make room for him in their roster, and pay QPR for him (again, trickle down). The Top Clubs no longer have to worry about trying to crowbar their "U23" teams into EFL Trophy competitions, because they won't have massive ranks of youngsters sitting around needing competitive football. EFL clubs no longer need to try to get loans of young talent from higher up, because those young players are available to sign at sensible pay levels (rather than sitting around at top clubs, on salaries that you and I could only dream of, without any prospect of 1st team football)

The FA could do this - if it had the will.

Again, there is the flaw of registering players. Teams could still hoard but then send the players out on loan, thereby not needing to register them to play in competitions. It would have to be a hard contract limit, and then that could then limit the bigger clubs taking chances on younger players from lower leagues that might not be good enough at the highest/elite level but will be taking up a contract slot.

If it's going to be that you can only have 35 contracted players as opposed to registered players then that will disincentivise youth schemes.

[StillSpike]

Registering means contract - they can't hoard them (in my ideal world) - even players sent out on loan are registered to the parent club. The whole point I'm making is that players should be developing further down the pyramid and then moving up if and when they are ready (with the consequent flow of funds downwards).

It may well disincentivise youth schemes for the big clubs - unless they think it's worth developing (unregistered and therefore uncontracted) kids themselves rather than buying better players later on in their careers - I don't think that's a bad thing. Clubs lower down would be incentivised to develop kids if they knew they were going to be able to sell the good ones further up the leagues.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

I don't see that the squad number capping would result in a lower wage bill - if anything, at our level it could see them go the other way as players from above drop down and still want big bucks.

I can also see this leading to clubs like ours becoming unofficial feeder clubs, the prospects being given a contract with us but with an agreement they move on at a later point.

[spen666]

….
What every club needs is to be lucky & have owners who value the club .

What every club needs is to live within its financial means and stop spending money they don't have

[tuffers#1]

….
What every club needs is to be lucky & have owners who value the club .

What every club needs is to live within its financial means and stop spending money they don't have

Which is done by owners who value a club.

To value a club you dont need to spend more than you earn & therefore put a.club at risk.

Apples are apples Spin !!

[POSHO]

And the fans accept bad performances and relegation

[tuffers#1]

Who has been relegated ?

[POSHO]

The point I have been trying to make is that fans are partially responsible. They support a football club and understandably want their team to win, but at what cost. They curse the club, team, players after a loss instead of seeing it's a game. So, therefore they demand better players etc until in some cases the inevitable conclusion. Enjoy the experience wherever it leads

[tuffers#1]

A far clearer explanation
Posho . I happen to agree with your point.

[spen666]

….
What every club needs is to be lucky & have owners who value the club .

What every club needs is to live within its financial means and stop spending money they don't have

Which is done by owners who value a club.

To value a club you dont need to spend more than you earn & therefore put a.club at risk.

Apples are apples Spin !!

So, in the whole of the EFL, the only owner who values a club seems to be Andy Holt at Accrington Stanley

[tuffers#1]

What every club needs is to live within its financial means and stop spending money they don't have

Which is done by owners who value a club.

To value a club you dont need to spend more than you earn & therefore put a.club at risk.

Apples are apples Spin !!

So, in the whole of the EFL, the only owner who values a club seems to be Andy Holt at Accrington Stanley

I really dont care to discuss anymore spen

Argue with someone else please
I am Hungry