Short version - road will only take 60 days to put in. Slight downside is there's absolutely no idea when that 60 days can start due to bureaucracy and people having the cheek of doing their job.
Investment - found a guy they like, won't see much difference though, but Rob can breather easier.
Football wise - missing a lot of players, will always struggle, generally relaxed about how poor we have been in that context,
He certainly won't move from the plan despite any "keyboard warriors" thinking differently.
I do like that Rob seems focused on advocating for a genuinely sustainable playing field for the game, in terms of building spending caps and the like into any large Premier League-based financial redistribution.
Rob sent me a message when I questioned attendances, and asked if in his view there was a link to performances.
”Not really. I have to work harder to increase the numbers. Despite the concern, I believe over the season we are trending in the right direction. Happy New Year“
I don’t believe that attendances are down solely because of performances. There are so many other factors, but the recent form certainly doesn’t help. Hopefully the Rovers result will help drive home attendances back towards levels seen in previous seasons.
I love the idea of caps. All sensible people like the idea of caps. Until there is a moral shift in football and proper governance there will never be effective caps.
+1. The trouble is that, even with a rigidly enforced salary cap, some clubs will find creative ways of getting round that. In rugby, Saracens were buying houses for players to live in rent-free, and opened 'investment accounts' in players' names, and got away with it for 3 years until they were caught, and got a massive points deduction.
On one hand a proportion of your income limit on expenditure sounds a sensible way to protect your club from overspending etc.
But on the other hand, you're massively limiting what your club can achieve, unless you stumble on some incredible once a lifetime manager who can outperform clubs with massively higher money.
Rob C has made a few little comments that suggest we could have extra money, but we're bound on what we can spend anyway.
I like the fact that Rob is being sensible about the management of the club. Yes, we could go and spend if Rob gave us an empty cheque but we would then fall foul of FFP later on down the line, short term gain, long term pain......
However, I do like the model in the US league. There is a wage cap for the league, except for 3 players who are paid purely by the owner / chairman. I think it was nicknamed the Beckham rule?
It’s not true that Wycombe can’t spend due to SC&P rules. Couhig is not telling the truth here.
Unlike FFP in the championship, where clubs can only lose a max 13m per season, league 1 and 2 club owners are able to inject whatever they like so long as it’s not debt I.e. a cash injection. it’s exactly what Ipswich and Sunderland did.
I'm probably slightly mis-representing what Rob said in fairness.
I think his previous talk on limits and maximums must be the wage part of the rules below.
We're probably at that limit.
Obviously if he threw eleventy billion in, that's great, as long as those players don't want wages above the 60% turnover.
In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - in League 2, the limit is 55%. There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees.
Are you aware that the policy is Salary Control Management Protocol? It’s SCMP. Hard to trust you’re more clued up than Couhig when you don’t even know what the policy is called.
The point is an accurate one, though, @frequentstander. Owners can inject funds to the turnover side of the equation through a fresh share issue, which provides scope to increase the wages side of the equation. Whether that is a fair expectation or within the definition of sustainable financing is another question entirely.
Yes I agree. I think the likely scenario is that Couhig has begun ratifying the transfer of his shares over to the incoming owner, which muddies the waters. It’s unlikely to be as simple as injecting cash.
It’s not you misrepresenting anything, it’s Couhig. He’s saying the club can’t spend anymore as they are right on the line of wages and turnover percentage which dictates what he and the club can invest. That’s simply not true.
It’s the rules of SCMP, which are different from FFP in the championship. Look it up! It’s all in the terms and conditions. It also explains how Ipswich and Sunderland spent big. Owners can invest whatever they like, there is not limit like in FFP for the championship, so long as it’s not converted to debt. Ie. A loan. Which is probably why it’s not on couhigs agenda. Any loans he has made to the club he still hopes to claw back somehow, perhaps through a sale.
Comments
Short version - road will only take 60 days to put in. Slight downside is there's absolutely no idea when that 60 days can start due to bureaucracy and people having the cheek of doing their job.
Investment - found a guy they like, won't see much difference though, but Rob can breather easier.
Football wise - missing a lot of players, will always struggle, generally relaxed about how poor we have been in that context,
He certainly won't move from the plan despite any "keyboard warriors" thinking differently.
I do like that Rob seems focused on advocating for a genuinely sustainable playing field for the game, in terms of building spending caps and the like into any large Premier League-based financial redistribution.
Onwards and upwards in 2024!
I liked the way he picked up on my comment that we had ten men playing against twelve yesterday.
RC has indeed been known to read the forum, under the username m@mardigrasfireworks
So I believe, @Shev. I heard it on the grapevine.
Now fraulein, where is Doctor Jones?
Rob sent me a message when I questioned attendances, and asked if in his view there was a link to performances.
”Not really. I have to work harder to increase the numbers. Despite the concern, I believe over the season we are trending in the right direction. Happy New Year“
I don’t believe that attendances are down solely because of performances. There are so many other factors, but the recent form certainly doesn’t help. Hopefully the Rovers result will help drive home attendances back towards levels seen in previous seasons.
I love the idea of caps. All sensible people like the idea of caps. Until there is a moral shift in football and proper governance there will never be effective caps.
+1. The trouble is that, even with a rigidly enforced salary cap, some clubs will find creative ways of getting round that. In rugby, Saracens were buying houses for players to live in rent-free, and opened 'investment accounts' in players' names, and got away with it for 3 years until they were caught, and got a massive points deduction.
The Andy caps, as it were.
There's pros and cons with caps aren't there?
On one hand a proportion of your income limit on expenditure sounds a sensible way to protect your club from overspending etc.
But on the other hand, you're massively limiting what your club can achieve, unless you stumble on some incredible once a lifetime manager who can outperform clubs with massively higher money.
Rob C has made a few little comments that suggest we could have extra money, but we're bound on what we can spend anyway.
I like the fact that Rob is being sensible about the management of the club. Yes, we could go and spend if Rob gave us an empty cheque but we would then fall foul of FFP later on down the line, short term gain, long term pain......
However, I do like the model in the US league. There is a wage cap for the league, except for 3 players who are paid purely by the owner / chairman. I think it was nicknamed the Beckham rule?
It’s not true that Wycombe can’t spend due to SC&P rules. Couhig is not telling the truth here.
Unlike FFP in the championship, where clubs can only lose a max 13m per season, league 1 and 2 club owners are able to inject whatever they like so long as it’s not debt I.e. a cash injection. it’s exactly what Ipswich and Sunderland did.
I'm probably slightly mis-representing what Rob said in fairness.
I think his previous talk on limits and maximums must be the wage part of the rules below.
We're probably at that limit.
Obviously if he threw eleventy billion in, that's great, as long as those players don't want wages above the 60% turnover.
In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - in League 2, the limit is 55%. There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees.
I suppose we could always buy a local company and then have them sponsor us for 100 million.
Not saying any well known recently highly successful clubs have done anything like that. Obviously.
Are you aware that the policy is Salary Control Management Protocol? It’s SCMP. Hard to trust you’re more clued up than Couhig when you don’t even know what the policy is called.
The point is an accurate one, though, @frequentstander. Owners can inject funds to the turnover side of the equation through a fresh share issue, which provides scope to increase the wages side of the equation. Whether that is a fair expectation or within the definition of sustainable financing is another question entirely.
Yes I agree. I think the likely scenario is that Couhig has begun ratifying the transfer of his shares over to the incoming owner, which muddies the waters. It’s unlikely to be as simple as injecting cash.
Guppy leaving was one of the worst things that happened in my teenage years. Above girls I messed up with.
Keegen and O'Neill didn't realise what they were doing 🤣
It’s not you misrepresenting anything, it’s Couhig. He’s saying the club can’t spend anymore as they are right on the line of wages and turnover percentage which dictates what he and the club can invest. That’s simply not true.
What is the truth and how do you know this. Genuinely not being funny..Interested in what you know.
It’s the rules of SCMP, which are different from FFP in the championship. Look it up! It’s all in the terms and conditions. It also explains how Ipswich and Sunderland spent big. Owners can invest whatever they like, there is not limit like in FFP for the championship, so long as it’s not converted to debt. Ie. A loan. Which is probably why it’s not on couhigs agenda. Any loans he has made to the club he still hopes to claw back somehow, perhaps through a sale.