Summer 2020 transfers

[officer_dibble]

Phew!
I thought the salary cap wasn’t next season actually, but fair enough.

[Harry Genshaw]

Maybe it's the pessimist in me but my big worry reading that is the potential for a fall out between Evatt and Phoenix. The former has a track record to speak of. The latter, not so much. I'd hope it's Evatt that has the final say and the greater power in the relationship.

Surely people falling out is a risk in literally every business in the world?

Oh aye. I realise I'm overthinking it and probably worrying without reason. Evatt is saying all the right things and coming across well. Phoenix, I'd prefer not to hear from for now.

[TonyDomingos]

£1.5m = an average of around £1,200 per player pw for a 24 man squad. But, I assume it'll actually be less because you have to set aside some funds for win bonuses and the like.

[Prufrock]

I’m not sure giving away his budget is the most sensible thing to do???

£1.5m is the mooted D4 salary cap, which Iles mentions in the previous sentence and presumably did so in his question to Phoenix. He's not giving anything away except that we'll be offering wages as good as anyone in the division, which surely every agent/player would know.

Interesting that it seems to be a flat cap across the board (rather than any link to income). This might be a Google is your friend question, but do we know what say the median wage was there in the last couple of years? It certainly doesn't sound that high. You wouldn't get enough labour from a premier league player to finish a decent sized bathroom for that.

[BWFC_Insane]

The salary capping is a nonsense for many reasons. Whilst I support some form of wage cap it a) has to apply universally across football at all levels b) needs to be tied in some way to revenue c) needs to be implemented over a long period d) needs to be structured in a fairly flexible way to allow owners to make contributions to a club's revenue where it can be demonstrated this is sustainable (for example where it is not a loan with interest) and f) needs a new body to oversee and monitor football finance with far more expertise and precision.

[Worthy4England]

The salary capping is a nonsense for many reasons. Whilst I support some form of wage cap it a) has to apply universally across football at all levels b) needs to be tied in some way to revenue c) needs to be implemented over a long period d) needs to be structured in a fairly flexible way to allow owners to make contributions to a club's revenue where it can be demonstrated this is sustainable (for example where it is not a loan with interest) and f) needs a new body to oversee and monitor football finance with far more expertise and precision.

I think it's dependent on what you're trying to achieve with a salary cap. If you're just trying to ensure that Clubs are financially stable then the list above helps, but I suspect won't stop some owners over-stretching on d) to chase a "prize". There is no realistic way the EFL can determine what an owner is worth (and even if they could there is no guarantee that the owner will put in any amount of that worth unless they made it "upfront bond" type arrangements - which would not then give owners the ability to move their money between a football club and other business interests, making football clubs a restrictive investment).

When you say salary capping is a nonsense, they have salary caps in other sports that work pretty well (although some people will always try and find a way around) - I'm thinking NFL, NHL, ARL, AFL, Rugby Union, Rugby League, County Cricket yadda, yadda...Why is football a special case? Well just because it's controlled by the rich Clubs who don't want to inhibit their dominance...

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I’m not sure giving away his budget is the most sensible thing to do???

£1.5m is the mooted D4 salary cap, which Iles mentions in the previous sentence and presumably did so in his question to Phoenix. He's not giving anything away except that we'll be offering wages as good as anyone in the division, which surely every agent/player would know.

Interesting that it seems to be a flat cap across the board (rather than any link to income). This might be a Google is your friend question, but do we know what say the median wage was there in the last couple of years? It certainly doesn't sound that high. You wouldn't get enough labour from a premier league player to finish a decent sized bathroom for that.

Unusually ignoring the opportunity for a "flat cap" joke, I'll say straight up that I don't know what the EFL's plans are, partly because I'm not sure they do either.

I did a piece, oh, three years ago and the average D4 wage was £1kpw. (In other and less relevant words, roughly twice the national average wage but for a far shorter career.) It may well have changed since but not massively, I don't think, and Tony D acknowledges that his maths are fag-packet (not just re win bonuses, but will all clubs have 24 players?) so we're talking very rough figures here, but £1,200 sounds about right. The question is whether they actually activate the thing, and that inertia is now hamstringing the 40-odd clubs of the lower 48 who know what division they're in next season – and therefore the players who are now unemployed and presumably frightened.

The salary capping is a nonsense for many reasons. Whilst I support some form of wage cap it a) has to apply universally across football at all levels b) needs to be tied in some way to revenue c) needs to be implemented over a long period d) needs to be structured in a fairly flexible way to allow owners to make contributions to a club's revenue where it can be demonstrated this is sustainable (for example where it is not a loan with interest) and f) needs a new body to oversee and monitor football finance with far more expertise and precision.

See, here's the thing, and it's one Pru touches on too (with his non-income-based flat cap). If it obeys your point (a) and universally applies across football, then it can't obey your point (b) and be tied in some way to revenue - unless you allow say 70% turnover-to-wage, in which case it's not universal. And if you do that, it's not obeying your point (d), which is flexibility. (As for (c) and (f), I wouldn't trust the EFL to run a coconut shy, let alone a billion-dollar business.)

Put simply, there is no right answer. Restrict fiscal input and you essentially kill all "small" clubs' dreams of progress, because their turnover will never match the big boys. Don't restrict financial inout and you will always have idiots running clubs to the wall, sometimes through malice (it seems we can now look either way up the A58 for that) and sometimes inept dream-chasing (we don't have to look too far for that either).

It's a bit like pundits calling at various times for both consistency and common sense: they're frequently incompatible. In the matter of financial "fair play", I'm yet to see a system that works without sacrificing one or other.

[BWFC_Insane]

I’m not sure giving away his budget is the most sensible thing to do???

£1.5m is the mooted D4 salary cap, which Iles mentions in the previous sentence and presumably did so in his question to Phoenix. He's not giving anything away except that we'll be offering wages as good as anyone in the division, which surely every agent/player would know.

Interesting that it seems to be a flat cap across the board (rather than any link to income). This might be a Google is your friend question, but do we know what say the median wage was there in the last couple of years? It certainly doesn't sound that high. You wouldn't get enough labour from a premier league player to finish a decent sized bathroom for that.

Unusually ignoring the opportunity for a "flat cap" joke, I'll say straight up that I don't know what the EFL's plans are, partly because I'm not sure they do either.

I did a piece, oh, three years ago and the average D4 wage was £1kpw. (In other and less relevant words, roughly twice the national average wage but for a far shorter career.) It may well have changed since but not massively, I don't think, and Tony D acknowledges that his maths are fag-packet (not just re win bonuses, but will all clubs have 24 players?) so we're talking very rough figures here, but £1,200 sounds about right. The question is whether they actually activate the thing, and that inertia is now hamstringing the 40-odd clubs of the lower 48 who know what division they're in next season – and therefore the players who are now unemployed and presumably frightened.

The salary capping is a nonsense for many reasons. Whilst I support some form of wage cap it a) has to apply universally across football at all levels b) needs to be tied in some way to revenue c) needs to be implemented over a long period d) needs to be structured in a fairly flexible way to allow owners to make contributions to a club's revenue where it can be demonstrated this is sustainable (for example where it is not a loan with interest) and f) needs a new body to oversee and monitor football finance with far more expertise and precision.

See, here's the thing, and it's one Pru touches on too (with his non-income-based flat cap). If it obeys your point (a) and universally applies across football, then it can't obey your point (b) and be tied in some way to revenue - unless you allow say 70% turnover-to-wage, in which case it's not universal. And if you do that, it's not obeying your point (d), which is flexibility. (As for (c) and (f), I wouldn't trust the EFL to run a coconut shy, let alone a billion-dollar business.)

Put simply, there is no right answer. Restrict fiscal input and you essentially kill all "small" clubs' dreams of progress, because their turnover will never match the big boys. Don't restrict financial inout and you will always have idiots running clubs to the wall, sometimes through malice (it seems we can now look either way up the A58 for that) and sometimes inept dream-chasing (we don't have to look too far for that either).

It's a bit like pundits calling at various times for both consistency and common sense: they're frequently incompatible. In the matter of financial "fair play", I'm yet to see a system that works without sacrificing one or other.

Under my system you’d have wages capped at a certain percentage of revenue across the leagues. You’d still allow owners to invest but an independent regulatory body would set the rules on when such investments are considered sustainable and then included within the cap.

That way you a) reduce unsustainable spending b) still give clubs the chance to progress and live the sporting dream and c) reduce financial cliff edges that exist now.

I don’t for one minute believe flat caps are the way forward nor is making it harder for people to invest in the sport. What you need to do is to dissuade those who see it as a quick buck making opportunity or who don’t have sustainable finance in place form getting involved. So for example you might get a Holdsworth situation where a loan is used to save a club. But then the further borrowing to invest in the team would be capped and monitored. Preventing the worst things hopefully from happening, whilst not preventing your Jack Walkers from investing into their clubs if they so choose.

[Prufrock]

Not sure there are huge differences between that and FFP which (at least certain versions) I think allow you to invest in e.g. academies/stadia.

The problem with investment is is almost always going to be in transfer fees and the big kicker wages. Then what happens if an owner pulls out and you still have players on premier League contracts in League 1. Only other way to stop that would be to force clubs to be massively capitalised which has its own problems.

% of turnover makes for a closed shop. Flat cap is more competitive. But then where does all the money go? I don't mind that players get paid so much (provided it's sustainable). They're who create the "product"

[BWFC_Insane]

Not sure there are huge differences between that and FFP which (at least certain versions) I think allow you to invest in e.g. academies/stadia.

The problem with investment is is almost always going to be in transfer fees and the big kicker wages. Then what happens if an owner pulls out and you still have players on premier League contracts in League 1. Only other way to stop that would be to force clubs to be massively capitalised which has its own problems.

% of turnover makes for a closed shop. Flat cap is more competitive. But then where does all the money go? I don't mind that players get paid so much (provided it's sustainable). They're who create the "product"

My argument is that a proper regulatory body can distinguish between your Jack Walkers and your Bassini's. Owners should be able to invest when they choose to improve their clubs. But there should be a framework established that ensures such spending is done in such a way as to ensure the club is not being spaffed up the wall...it isn't that hard - the other benefit of this would be that you'd put off those less genuine owners. The draw back being a regulator needed in football - but frankly if you want to keep clubs alive at all levels and still have a competition all the way up - something needs to be done that is radical.

[Bertie Wooster]

Sounds like Ali Crawford is re signing today - great signing for League 2 if true.

[nicholaldo]

Fantastic. It's a big statement of intent.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Sounds like Ali Crawford is re signing today - great signing for League 2 if true.

Where you getting that from, boss? Great news if true. Also note that assuming Evatt sticks to 3-4-1-2, Crawford is could well be the guy to float in that "No10" position, which might suit him down to the ground.

If it happens (and I'm being cautious rather than doubtful), it's a damn fine start.

[nicholaldo]

Sounds like Ali Crawford is re signing today - great signing for League 2 if true.

Where you getting that from, boss? Great news if true. Also note that assuming Evatt sticks to 3-4-1-2, Crawford is could well be the guy to float in that "No10" position, which might suit him down to the ground.

If it happens (and I'm being cautious rather than doubtful), it's a damn fine start.

Check the club's offical twitter feed. He's signed a two-year contract.

[BWFC_Insane]

2 year deal. Good business that. I liked the look of him a lot last season. Busy - but got real quality. Also good on set pieces. Feel he'll fit into an Evatt side well. We need some minders in midfield around him though - he had to do too much dirty work for my liking in Hill's team.

Good signs though from the club - first time in a long while that all seems positive and on the up. Something has to go wrong next week now....

[The_Gun]

Absolutely brilliant news. Crawford was very good at League One level, so a division down should really be tearing it up. I'm pretty surprised we've managed to retain him, but perhaps the security on offer was too good to turn down.

[Bertie Wooster]

Ian Evatt's football philosophy and style of play will attract some decent players at this level, another rumour is that Eoin Doyle is considering a contract offer from BWFC.

Players will want to come & play for Evatt, if he gets us playing decent football the Reebok will be buzzing and at this level there will be nowhere else that can come even close, biggest & best stadium by a mile, best facilities, biggest crowds.

[Harry Genshaw]

Great start to the recruitment that. Hamilton, Bryan and Doyle next please!

[nicholaldo]

Iles reports that Crawford turned down offers from clubs in League One to re-sign with us.

[LeverEnd]

Iles reports that Crawford turned down offers from clubs in League One to re-sign with us.

The speed of it is impressive too. Statement of intent. I'd be trying to keep Lowe and Matthews next.