Soutra - are you talking about Premier or EFL? Because wages were already dropping like a stone in the Championship before the pandemic.
Financial Fair Play
- Thread starter Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret
- Start date
Pre pandemic I guess, but why would EFL wages be dropping like a stone? Just about every player who has played since the lockdown is contracted. I know there are plenty of stories about EFL clubs being unable to pay the wage levels they were paying before the lockdown, but I suspect (and I don't know for sure) at least half of all EFL players have contracts for at least another season. So if Boro wants to sign player X, and he says he'll come only if he gets as much as player Y (who is already on the books), then there's no real prospect of wages reducing.
Football clubs are their own worst enemies. I know every fan wants his team to be successful, but someone needs to get a financial grip of what the club can afford and abide by it. I think players in the EFL need to consider seriously becoming part time, because there just isn't the money to carry on paying stupid wages for mediocrity. All clubs seem to need at least 30 players (why?) and an army of physios and trainers and assistants. With no gate receipts for the foreseeable future, it's hard to see a way forward for EFL teams that doesn't involve getting rid of lots of people.
Surely not part time. That really would change everything. It would swing it far too much in the other direction. What happens if a player is injured and cannot play or work? There is very little work now and it needs to be flexible. Standards would really drop.
No definitelly would be a big step backwards for everyone but surely very wrong for footballers.
No definitelly would be a big step backwards for everyone but surely very wrong for footballers.
Frozen Horse
Well-known member
Pie in the sky here, but I think the only way it could be done is to announce the next 2 TV deals almost at the same time.
The first would be the usual XXXX million for X years.
The second, straight after, would be no TV for X years.
No player would have a contract longer than the first TV contract: the clubs could therefore use the money from the first TV deal to fulfill existing commitments, and prepared for the forthcoming austerity.
Maybe after that, TV could be introduced in a way that didn't make football so dependent upon it.
Frozen Horse
Well-known member
Interesting how this has changed; when I started watching in the 80s, clubs seemed to use few more than 15-16 players.
I think fitness and athleticism, rather than skill, have become far more important in recent decades. We talk about players looking "tired" these days and tend to sneer about it. However, I think in a "marginal gains" sense there is some truth in it.
Older ex-pros talk about always being slightly injured, and never quite 100%. Yes, they could play at 85, 90% fit, but could they perform to their full ability? If not, it didn't matter: everyone else was slightly injured too. Now, if you're not in peak condition, it shows more .
Money and rules have also made it possible: a team with fewer options on the bench is a disadvantage, but that didn't matter when you were only allowed 2 on the bench.
1finny
Well-known member
Parry has said this was a rumour he had heard and personally felt it had no credibility.
Wigan have been badly run for the last 3 seasons - pre this season they were spending circa 60% more than their income chasing the dream.
The sugar daddy wasn’t the problem he just ensured they went pop quicker.