By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 14:39 - Dec 30 by Hunterhoop
Whilst I share the broad principle, Baz, and there are rich philanthropists trying to do just what you say, it isn’t so simple as you make out.
One of the great cons of capitalism, private wealth, is that much of it is based on assets not liquidity, in terms of cash in the bank.
So whilst Fernandes, Trump, and other “billionaires”, aren’t exactly short of a few Bob in their personal accounts, they aren’t sitting there with a billion or two at their disposal.
The assets they own make them billionaires. But the assets alone don’t exist purely for them. Most, if not, all provide direct and indirect employment for thousands, if not tens of thousands of other people, and, therefore some degree (much smaller) of wealth to others. That asset may be worth a billion, but it’s not real personal, liquid wealth that could be used for philanthropy unless they sold the asset. But such activity risks impacting the levels of employment and wealth being generated directly and indirectly for others.
Almost all private buyers would need to acquire such assets with loans from banks, or it would be PE houses using investors’ capital. In both scenarios, acquisitions only happen if there is the ability to make more profit (and generate strong cash flow) from the asset to pay for the interest on the loan or make a good return on the investors’ capital. Doing so, and the general pursuit of unfettered growth, often comes at the expense of the workers and suppliers. Everyone gets squeezed or the consumer gets squeezed, sometimes both, meaning, ultimately the public pay.
So, it’s not like most billionaires can dip into their personal pocket to lift millions out of poverty. They basically operate huge accounting models, way above my head, that provide them enough liquid wealth to live a lavish lifestyle whilst juggling assets to retain/grow their value.
I’m very sympathetic to the view that capitalism has got ahead of itself and gone too far down the line of “growth” being the only concern at all costs and to be obtained as quickly as possible. I still think people having the ability to grow their personal wealth is a good thing as it provides hope to individuals and has been shown throughout the 20th century to drive improved standards of living for the majority. However, capitalism needs state intervention to ensure it does not drive wealth creation at the expense of poverty creation and environmental damage. Call it capitalism with a conscience. Now is the time this agenda needs to be pushed.
However, whilst I respect socialists, I do think they’d help create a world closer to what they want by first pushing capitalism with a conscience than simply pushing socialism.
Whether the UK electorate (let alone others) is ready for that, as well as whether we have the right electoral system to deliver it, is still highly questionable. Instead we seem to have gone down the path of creating enemies, and fighting each other on topics that are pure window dressing to distract.
[Post edited 30 Dec 2021 23:14]
Not going to comment on the UK electorate, but yeah great post and points.
[Post edited 30 Dec 2021 16:19]
0
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 18:04 - Dec 30 with 3155 views
Not wanting to quote Hunterhoop's post (and clog up the thread) but you can see what he means about assets if you remember Chris Wright's time as Chairman. OK he was "just" a multi-millionaire rather than a billionaire, but money went a bit further in football then.
I for one assumed he had the cash to buy e.g. Mike Sheron, what with him having "a personal fortune" of ÂŁX million, but what that really meant was that he owned Chrysalis Records, and to stay rich he had to keep on owning Chrysalis Records. He could find millions because banks would lend that to him on the security of his shareholdings, but eventually he wanted that money back to pay them
1
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 18:12 - Dec 30 with 3108 views
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 18:04 - Dec 30 by CiderwithRsie
Not wanting to quote Hunterhoop's post (and clog up the thread) but you can see what he means about assets if you remember Chris Wright's time as Chairman. OK he was "just" a multi-millionaire rather than a billionaire, but money went a bit further in football then.
I for one assumed he had the cash to buy e.g. Mike Sheron, what with him having "a personal fortune" of ÂŁX million, but what that really meant was that he owned Chrysalis Records, and to stay rich he had to keep on owning Chrysalis Records. He could find millions because banks would lend that to him on the security of his shareholdings, but eventually he wanted that money back to pay them
Well this is also the thing, we admire wealthy owners for their hard work, creativity, and innovation when really they are just manipulating a system ripe for manipulation that we could ALL do with the right amount of ÂŁ in the bank from inheritance or good fortune, contacts, financial environment, and ruthlessness.
This is especially true of football which is more volatile than most.
[Post edited 30 Dec 2021 18:35]
0
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 23:47 - Dec 30 with 2881 views
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 13:08 - Dec 30 by Stainrod
Regarding psychopaths, Briatore and Ecclestone were quite unlovable people for sure. But Fernandes is as far removed from the pantomime villain businessman as you can get - his crime (if crime it be) was incredible nativity rather than cynicism.
But leaving aside what the owners might be like as people (not really relevant) would rather a billionaire than a relative pauper (like Paladini) owning us.
Fans (I'm not saying specifically you) often say they don't like rich owners but then come the next defeat its often "the chairman needs to put his hand in his pocket. Why can't we sign a fourth right wing back" etc.
As a fanbase we sometimes want it both ways.
"Incredible nativity". Well, it is Christmas.
3
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 07:33 - Dec 31 with 2655 views
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 18:04 - Dec 30 by CiderwithRsie
Not wanting to quote Hunterhoop's post (and clog up the thread) but you can see what he means about assets if you remember Chris Wright's time as Chairman. OK he was "just" a multi-millionaire rather than a billionaire, but money went a bit further in football then.
I for one assumed he had the cash to buy e.g. Mike Sheron, what with him having "a personal fortune" of ÂŁX million, but what that really meant was that he owned Chrysalis Records, and to stay rich he had to keep on owning Chrysalis Records. He could find millions because banks would lend that to him on the security of his shareholdings, but eventually he wanted that money back to pay them
It is possible he did have the readies available to buy Sheron, but being an egotistical, self indulged type, why use your own money when you can lump it on the back of the club? Was the loan on the security of his shareholdings actually lent on our ground? Who took the risk? Why, oh why, oh why etc etc
0
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 11:22 - Dec 31 with 2473 views
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 19:28 - Dec 29 by BazzaInTheLoft
No idea what SteveC has said, but wage caps punish the workers not the owners.
Presuming they are legal, enforceable, and fairly distributed, they still wouldn’t end assert stripping, debt stacking, or making a club bankrupt in any way.
Not saying huge wages aren’t a problem because they are. I read a recommendation once on a parliamentary paper stating that 40% of wages to net income was a reasonable and sustainable figure. Why not start there?
The Bazza solution is enforce FFP properly, declare all sports clubs CICs, then create a law making bankruptcy of a CIC (in this case a football club) by wilful means, or incompetence a custodial sentence. This covers all bases, is pretty loophole proof, and takes the burden off the EFL and puts it toe CPS instead. The CPS have no conflict of interest or commercial considerations to enforcing FFP like the EFL/FA/PL do.
This would deter the wronguns and focus the well meaning, and to SteveC’s delight would naturally result in players getting paid less.
I wouldn't say a wage cap punishes anyone. Imagine if your local council discovered an oil well in your area and they made enough profit that everyone's council tax dropped to a nominal amount of ÂŁ1 a month. But then a few years later they realise that the amount of oil there was a lot less than they thought, and it's about to run out. So they return everyone's council tax to what it was before. That's not a punishment. It's just the end of a very fortunate and unexpected benefit that is no longer sustainable.
If wage caps are universal then no-one gets treated unfairly. It just means that clubs who don't have wealthy investors and/or large commercial income streams can still be competitive paying wages they can afford. Meanwhile richer clubs can still make their extra funds count through transfer fees instead, which are far more likely to reach other clubs than TV money ever does.
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 11:22 - Dec 31 by saxbend
I wouldn't say a wage cap punishes anyone. Imagine if your local council discovered an oil well in your area and they made enough profit that everyone's council tax dropped to a nominal amount of ÂŁ1 a month. But then a few years later they realise that the amount of oil there was a lot less than they thought, and it's about to run out. So they return everyone's council tax to what it was before. That's not a punishment. It's just the end of a very fortunate and unexpected benefit that is no longer sustainable.
If wage caps are universal then no-one gets treated unfairly. It just means that clubs who don't have wealthy investors and/or large commercial income streams can still be competitive paying wages they can afford. Meanwhile richer clubs can still make their extra funds count through transfer fees instead, which are far more likely to reach other clubs than TV money ever does.
That’s a tenous comparison.
What do you mean by universal? Would Accrington Stanley have the same cap as say Man City? Would it be decided by leagues? As in the Prem would have ÂŁX cap and L2 have ÂŁX cap?
Would signing on fees still be legal? Could you for example only pay Aguero ÂŁ20,000 per week but a ÂŁ20m signing on fee?
Would agents take up the slack in the lower wages? Would their cut get higher?
Wages are a problem, but they are an issue cause by reckless or hostile owners. As is the other issues that a wage cap wouldn’t touch I mentioned.
Like Frankie Boyle once said, it’s the bankers (owners) who did it!
0
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 14:18 - Dec 31 with 2279 views
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 14:05 - Dec 29 by radfords
Wage caps seeks parity in limiting salary costs for all clubs in the league. FFP allows clubs to spend in line with their resources which may be different for each club. It could be argued that wage caps are anti-competitive whereas FFP is not as long as the rules are adhered to of course.
I don't understand your logic. Maybe I misunderstood your point but I think you have it backwards. Wage caps are pro-competition. All clubs have a (relatively) level playing field when it comes to player salaries -- all clubs can spend the same on player wages. That is pro-competitive. FFP locks in the advantage of the big clubs and are totally anti-competitive.
Scum spent almost billion pounds on their squad and their annual salary bill is 300 million pounds. They owe their owner over 1.2 billion pounds. Most clubs just can't compete with that level of resources and never will be.
Of course, the Prem and FA would never agree to a salary cap. It'd make English clubs uncompetitive against the likes of Barca or PSV. So its just a pipe dream anyhow
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 13:46 - Dec 30 by BazzaInTheLoft
I think they were lucky. Only three teams a year has their value go up enough to create a worthwhile profit. Imagine we had Pearson or someone instead of Warnock managing that incredibly talented squad.
And by the same token, Fernandes was unlucky with his decisions on his staffing appointments?
0
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 18:47 - Dec 31 with 1964 views
I am wondering about the MLB "Competitive Balance Tax" as an option and if some form of that may work in football. Basically, how I read it, the CBT of each player is calculated at the end of the season and on wages as opposed to other financial transactions. MLB, like football, has no limits on salaries, etc.
Not too sure how it would work if employed in the UK but not in Europe. From what I can see, it should not effect salaries, but would hit the pocket of an owner who wanted to spend that extra amount. How this would be calculated, and there is an assumption of different CBTs for each division, would be something a collective bargaining mechanism would need to work out. Anyway, just a thought.
0
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 22:34 - Dec 31 with 1836 views
I might need to retire from the board; I posted something political that Baz, LBlock, Berks, Cider and Nix all up voted. Can’t do better than that. I’m in the wrong job.
2
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 23:05 - Dec 31 with 1775 views
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 07:33 - Dec 31 by distortR
It is possible he did have the readies available to buy Sheron, but being an egotistical, self indulged type, why use your own money when you can lump it on the back of the club? Was the loan on the security of his shareholdings actually lent on our ground? Who took the risk? Why, oh why, oh why etc etc
If I remember correctly, didn't the cash for buying Peacock, Spencer, Sheron et al come from floating the club (along with Wasps) on the AIM?
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 22:34 - Dec 31 by Hunterhoop
I might need to retire from the board; I posted something political that Baz, LBlock, Berks, Cider and Nix all up voted. Can’t do better than that. I’m in the wrong job.
Like saying ten Bloody Mary's into a mirror.
0
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 10:40 - Jan 1 with 1563 views
Bristol City (bang in trouble) on 13:17 - Dec 31 by BazzaInTheLoft
That’s a tenous comparison.
What do you mean by universal? Would Accrington Stanley have the same cap as say Man City? Would it be decided by leagues? As in the Prem would have ÂŁX cap and L2 have ÂŁX cap?
Would signing on fees still be legal? Could you for example only pay Aguero ÂŁ20,000 per week but a ÂŁ20m signing on fee?
Would agents take up the slack in the lower wages? Would their cut get higher?
Wages are a problem, but they are an issue cause by reckless or hostile owners. As is the other issues that a wage cap wouldn’t touch I mentioned.
Like Frankie Boyle once said, it’s the bankers (owners) who did it!
The way I would do it would be to have a fixed starting salary for each division. Signing on fee and bonuses and clauses all identical within each division. Then each year a standard payrise scheme so that every player's wages goes up by a certain amount for each season spent at the same club. If he then signs for another club his wages go back to the beginning for the division that his new club plays in. If a club moves up or down a division the wages adjust automatically to fit the scheme of the new division. A player will receive percentages of transfer fees just as players do today, but wages will always be determined by a set of rules based on division and length of time playing for the current club. And no, there'll be no signing on fees and if HMRC discover any other payments from the club (and they would because they're not going to be casual about footballers' incomes) to the player in attempt to get around it, this should be reported to the FA who would have a set of punishments to apply.
I know why this or anything like it would ever be implemented, and sadly that means that no matter how effective a system for limiting wages someone conceives of, the big clubs who can always afford to pay what others can't to get the most in-demand players will always be favoured by the powers that be while other clubs drive themselves to the wall just to be competitive.
I see an element of irony that while we all know how misleading it is when the media (and plenty of fans) talk about transfer fees as the only money that gets spent on players, with the ridiculous concept of a total spend each window, which actually consists of the same money moving between multiple clubs over a chain of transfer sales, counted several times towards the total spend, football would actually be a lot more sustainable if transfer fees really were where the big clubs actually put their financial advantage. Players could still earn a big bonus by taking a cut every time a club pays silly money for him, while every club has a very easy to predict wage bill that is sustainable while still allowing everyone to be competitive in their respective divisions.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
