Independent Leyton Orient Forum

So if you currently have 20 players earning in and around that (and I wouldn't be surprised if we did) you can't sign anyone?

Adz wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:46 am So if you currently have 20 players earning in and around that (and I wouldn't be surprised if we did) you can't sign anyone?

That’s where loan deals come in. And there will be loads of them

Adz wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:46 am So if you currently have 20 players earning in and around that (and I wouldn't be surprised if we did) you can't sign anyone?

Unlikely all 22 players would be on the maximum. The younger players, those on the way up likely to be on much less like all jobs. Any cap will really only affect the better and senior players. The better players will move up for more money as soon as they can, clubs will not be able to offer better deals to keep them longer. Easy pickings for higher clubs.

Those with proven experience approaching the peak time will be the hardest hit. Say between 23 and 32. The 9/10 years at the top where they need to cash in on their abilities.

Loan activity will be massive. Wouldn’t surprise me if 25%+ of a squad are loanees, 25%+ kids and the remainder experienced players,

This figure of no new players signing on more than 62.25k is utter tosh. It is simply 1.25m divided by 20. Within a squad, some players will be on 500 quid a week and some on 1500 and I suspect we have players on more than that. As has been pointed out by other posters why would you sign for a club where a higher percentage of your wage will go on housing costs? I also think that this course of action would lead to league repercussions- how can you legislate that a player in league 2 can only earn 62.25k? Wage bill should be linked to club turnover between 60-70% end of. If this is enforced a lower league player may earn more in the national league if they don’t have a maximum player wage.

moonwalk19 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:16 pm

Andy Gilson wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:20 pm Thankyou for that moonwalk.
I think people have to remember that at the lg1 and 2 and Conf levels there will be many players looking for work as clubs, like firms up and down the country look to cut costs. A job playing footy for 50 - 60 k is a damn site better than being unemployed with no relevant work experience for any other jobs on offer.
Times are changing and outside the top levels of sport salaries are about to become more in line with other 'regular' jobs imho.

We are so lucky to have Phoenix fm and Orient outlook programmes to keep the fans up to date with what’s going on.Especially with interviews with club directors and playing staff. I have a friend who is a Southend fan ( he cannot help it) who does not know whats happening at his club.

He is fortunate.

Mikero wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:26 pm Is that figues fair on clubs in areas of high housing costs. The diffence between housing cost in London and Grimsby, for example, is huge. Londons cheapest is £481,000, Grimsby average £151,000.

As to ways around a pay cap, remember what Boston got away with.

Mikero

Obviously London's cheapest house is not £481k.

Mikero wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:26 pm Is that figues fair on clubs in areas of high housing costs. The diffence between housing cost in London and Grimsby, for example, is huge. Londons cheapest is £481,000, Grimsby average £151,000.

As to ways around a pay cap, remember what Boston got away with.

Mikero

Not many actually live in London. Most live outside in counties like Essex, Surrey, Sussex and travel in. This is the argument against a London Allowance.

Mikero wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 7:35 pm So a mortgage in London is going to cost three times more than other areas. Renting will have a similar ratio, who is going to want to play in the Capital other than unmarried players when you can get so much more for your family with the same wage.

Mikero

Good point, and one LOFC may suffer from. The ceiling (£62.25k) only generates a take-home of £860 a week. Doesn't go far in London for a bloke with 3 kids.

Scuba Diver wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:26 am

Mikero wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 7:35 pm So a mortgage in London is going to cost three times more than other areas. Renting will have a similar ratio, who is going to want to play in the Capital other than unmarried players when you can get so much more for your family with the same wage.

Mikero

Good point, and one LOFC may suffer from. The ceiling (£62.25k) only generates a take-home of £860 a week. Doesn't go far in London for a bloke with 3 kids.

Absolutely. This needs re-thinking.

Complicated as to what to do for the best but fact of the matter is that many clubs are living far beyond their means. As to players having a struggle to find work when they retire from football. well years ago, I may be wrong but I think young footballers used to undergo some form of job training for things other than being a footballer. Tom Finney for instance was trained to be a plumber and quote '' Post-war demand for plumbers ensured that he had a second income to supplement the £14 he received as a footballer and thus Tom Finney was nicknamed "The Preston Plumber"
Many footballers in the sixties and 70s had other jobs going on at the same time as they played. A popular second job was owning small shops like newsagents and tobacconists. So the way things are going, I could well imagine many Division One and Two clubs going down the route of players being part time professionals and having second jobs outside of their footballing one's.

Stupid idea - as so many above have pointed out, it's easy to get around, and takes no account of regional variations in cost of living etc. Impossible to police.

A simple cap on the total number of players a club can have - throughout the whole league (although with different numbers at different levels) - would in itself reduce the wages costs for all clubs, and mean that wealth does trickle down to the lower levels. Easy to police.

StillSpike wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 1:21 pm Stupid idea - as so many above have pointed out, it's easy to get around, and takes no account of regional variations in cost of living etc. Impossible to police.

A simple cap on the total number of players a club can have - throughout the whole league (although with different numbers at different levels) - would in itself reduce the wages costs for all clubs, and mean that wealth does trickle down to the lower levels. Easy to police.

That Spike is a great idea. A little flexibility around numbers of youngsters, who will not be on megabucks, to ensure new blood and perhaps loan players who should be financed by their parent club, generally higher tier. But it’s fair and reduces the risk to London based clubs, salary wise.

i thought our current wage budget was about 1.5 million

Salary cap is not the answer but a mixture of % ? turnover, squad size and players on loan from premier clubs having thier wages paid by parent club could help lower league clubs. Although it applies mainly in the premier/championship clubs no Agents fees should be paid for by clubs when transfers take place. A player employs a Agent then he should pay commission not the clubs.

AckneyAwks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 2:33 pm Salary cap is not the answer but a mixture of % ? turnover, squad size and players on loan from premier clubs having thier wages paid by parent club could help lower league clubs. Although it applies mainly in the premier/championship clubs no Agents fees should be paid for by clubs when transfers take place. A player employs a Agent then he should pay commission not the clubs.

Players need agents. Very few professional footballers are likely to have the skills needed to negotiate a deal and agree a contract. They are likely to get stitched up. If players pay for the services of an agent then the cost of that will be factored in to the deal the player wants. So the club, if they want a player, end up paying anyway.

The other benefit of having an agent is that any bad feelings that occur during tough negotiations is between the club and the agent and not the club and it’s employee. Makes for a better working relationship.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 2:40 pm

AckneyAwks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 2:33 pm Salary cap is not the answer but a mixture of % ? turnover, squad size and players on loan from premier clubs having thier wages paid by parent club could help lower league clubs. Although it applies mainly in the premier/championship clubs no Agents fees should be paid for by clubs when transfers take place. A player employs a Agent then he should pay commission not the clubs.

Players need agents. Very few professional footballers are likely to have the skills needed to negotiate a deal and agree a contract. They are likely to get stitched up. If players pay for the services of an agent then the cost of that will be factored in to the deal the player wants. So the club, if they want a player, end up paying anyway.

The other benefit of having an agent is that any bad feelings that occur during tough negotiations is between the club and the agent and not the club and it’s employee. Makes for a better working relationship.

It also depends on who pays the agent. Does a L1/L2 player pay the agent out of his salary and therefore nets less money or does the agent agree a fee with the club which perhaps falls outside the wage cap?

There are going to lots of older players not getting deals going forward, If there is a salary cap then squads will be built on mainly younger players who by defination will be cheaper. I guess that the cap wont come fully into effect next season and there will be some sort of transition toward beng fully in force in 2021/22.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 1:37 pm

StillSpike wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 1:21 pm Stupid idea - as so many above have pointed out, it's easy to get around, and takes no account of regional variations in cost of living etc. Impossible to police.

A simple cap on the total number of players a club can have - throughout the whole league (although with different numbers at different levels) - would in itself reduce the wages costs for all clubs, and mean that wealth does trickle down to the lower levels. Easy to police.

That Spike is a great idea. A little flexibility around numbers of youngsters, who will not be on megabucks, to ensure new blood and perhaps loan players who should be financed by their parent club, generally higher tier. But it’s fair and reduces the risk to London based clubs, salary wise.

Thank you. However, my idea is not intended to be flexible, and is also not intended to be circumvented by loan players. The absolute cap on numbers registered must include any lent out. If the Premiership teams were similarly restricted in the number of players they were allowed to register, then they wouldn't be able to hoover up all the talented youngsters to create great squads of talent with no-one to play, itching to get lent out to a lower club. If the Premiership teams aren't able to hoover up the talent, then they have to try to ply their trade further down the pyramid until they are good enough to be transferred up (with the consequent trickle down of funds). More players chasing a restricted number of contracts (at all levels) is bound to drive down the wages (both individual and squad total) to a level that is sustainable. The player/club relationship becomes more of a buyers market, if you like.

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:20 pm There are going to lots of older players not getting deals going forward, If there is a salary cap then squads will be built on mainly younger players who by defination will be cheaper. I guess that the cap wont come fully into effect next season and there will be some sort of transition toward beng fully in force in 2021/22.

These older players will normally go into the National Leagues but there have been rumours that some clubs may not even be able to continue next season. What a mess.