STOP PRESS

Looks like the salary cap is off / on hold. The PFA claim they weren't consulted and have served a 'Notice of Arbitration' on the EFL. Does that mean a players' strike?

That'll go down well with the average fan. Not. Players furloughed / picking up full wages for months for doing nothing and now their union tells them to go on strike now there are signs that matches are returning.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Collars wrote:As said it's a move in the right direction. I'd be up for reducing the number of substitutes too. Clubs carrying extra players to mostly sit on the bench doesn't help anyone and do we really need 7 to choose from?

Totally agree with this post.Reducing the number of subs, for me maximum 3 including 'keeper. would really do something to make the League more competitive.

Reading this again Stan, are you advocating only three named subs, possibly only two outfield players? Can't see this working. The current three from seven seems to work well. I was pleased to read that the Premier League had declined the possibility of continuing with the (Covid) five.

Not (currently) in the BBC report is this, from the Guardian:

Clubs also agreed to maximum 20-man squads, although players under the age of 21 will be exempt from this and the salary cap, and squads of 22 will be allowed in 2020-21 in a transition season.

which also indicates the EFL can do what the clubs have agreed whatever the PFA say:

the English Football League is confident the measures can take immediate effect despite the Professional Footballers’ Association describing them as “unlawful and unenforceable”.

When we loan players in, do we tend to pay their wages, or is that normally covered by the parent club? Just wondering how that factors into things.

I'm guessing when it's youngsters from the Premier League/Championship the parent club is playing, but when we're loaning from another League 2 club it's us paying?

excessbee wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Collars wrote:As said it's a move in the right direction. I'd be up for reducing the number of substitutes too. Clubs carrying extra players to mostly sit on the bench doesn't help anyone and do we really need 7 to choose from?

Totally agree with this post.Reducing the number of subs, for me maximum 3 including 'keeper. would really do something to make the League more competitive.

Reading this again Stan, are you advocating only three named subs, possibly only two outfield players? Can't see this working. The current three from seven seems to work well. I was pleased to read that the Premier League had declined the possibility of continuing with the (Covid) five.

Yes.

Whether or not you prefer allowing three from seven which is your subjective view. Or three from three, which is mine, both are valid views. Clearly both work.

My view is that in allowing a bench of seven you give a further advantage to the club with greater resources. Which makes games less competitive.

I'd like to see three subs from five, plus a keeper as a fourth, and a fourth outfield sub in extra time. Was there any pressure to raise it from five to seven in the first place?

George Street-Bridge wrote:I'd like to see three subs from five, plus a keeper as a fourth, and a fourth outfield sub in extra time. Was there any pressure to raise it from five to seven in the first place?

There have been a number of changes to the game since you and me started watching the game in the 1960's.

Some like the pass back to the 'keeper rule have clearly made the game better. Others such as 3 points for a win and the playoffs have undoubtedly improved the game but perhaps are not entirely fair.

Then there come the changes which suit the bigger clubs over the smaller ones. The home team keeping all gate receipts, the introduction of a squad game as opposed the eleven v eleven.

And then there are the changes which suit the smaller teams. Unfortunately I can't think of any.

George Street-Bridge wrote:I'd like to see three subs from five, plus a keeper as a fourth, and a fourth outfield sub in extra time. Was there any pressure to raise it from five to seven in the first place?

Extra time as in, Cup ties? Is that now standard practice or it just beyond a certain stage, third round?

There's been plenty of suggestion that the club don't give young players enough of an opportunity in the first team. If we end up lowering the number of subs we have on matchday, we might as well bin off the academy all together.

I think the current sub system is fine, although I would add a space on the bench for a 'free sub' (so doesn't count towards the usual 3 subs) that can be a player under the age of 21, been at the club's youth system for at least 2 years and has less than 20 career first team appearances or something like that.

At first glance the announcement seems sensible, however there are potential pitfalls that need to be considered.

I wonder if any potential future sugar daddies will be put off with the idea of buying a club because of the FFP rules. Apparently they come into effect immediately. They may think that it is unreasonable to have to pay a financial penalty that may be the result of financial mismanagement by the previous owners. Didn’t something similar to this happen at Wigan?

I also wonder on what grounds the PFA say it is unlawful and unenforceable. There must be some merit in this. If a PFA official has made this statement off the cuff it will make his/her position untenable and make the PFA look foolish.

Going hand in hand with financial prudence should be exploring ways of getting more money in to the game. On an EFL national level I rarely see that discussed. It’s all done individually by the clubs, me, me, me. It’s a two way street, income and expenditure. The EFL should take a look at the environmental lobby. As well as advising cutting down on emissions (output) they look at alternative green energy supplies (input). They go together.

How will it work if say, for example, Salford have 18 players all on contracts and their wages come to over £1.5m ? Surely they can’t be penalised for breaking a cap that was introduced after this? That would be ridiculous and simply unfair.

Exile 1976 wrote:How will it work if say, for example, Salford have 18 players all on contracts and their wages come to over £1.5m ? Surely they can’t be penalised for breaking a cap that was introduced after this? That would be ridiculous and simply unfair.

If the 18 players are already on a contract, the maximum they can take from the cap for next season is £1,300 a week, 18*1300*52 = £1,216,800. At least that is what was being proposed.

Amberexile wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:How will it work if say, for example, Salford have 18 players all on contracts and their wages come to over £1.5m ? Surely they can’t be penalised for breaking a cap that was introduced after this? That would be ridiculous and simply unfair.

If the 18 players are already on a contract, the maximum they can take from the cap for next season is £1,300 a week, 18*1300*52 = £1,216,800. At least that is what was being proposed.

What if they’re on 2 yr deals?

Exile 1976 wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:How will it work if say, for example, Salford have 18 players all on contracts and their wages come to over £1.5m ? Surely they can’t be penalised for breaking a cap that was introduced after this? That would be ridiculous and simply unfair.

If the 18 players are already on a contract, the maximum they can take from the cap for next season is £1,300 a week, 18*1300*52 = £1,216,800. At least that is what was being proposed.

What if they’re on 2 yr deals?

It counts for the duration of the contracts.