| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? 16:02 - Jan 5 with 418 views | noah4x4 |
Well done Robbie Cowling for spelling out the issues that Col U soon face.
I had no idea that from next season, Division One Football League clubs are not permitted to have a playing budget exceeding 65% of ticket revenue (plus commercial takings and player transfer proceeds). Today, our ratio is over 104%, and that’s notwithstanding that RC had already restricted the current playing budget to 100% of ticket revenues.
So what does this mean for a club like the U’s?
a) Player wages must be constrained?
b) Smaller Squads?
c) We need far bigger crowds (unrealistic?), and/or more commercial revenues?
d) We hence MUST make our money by developing players and selling them on?
Perhaps RC heard this was coming? — but if not — how foresighted was his decisions announced before this season started? - and hence the investment in training ground, development squad et!
Then let’s applaud John Ward? How can one effectively develop a successful team under these constraints without an (in progress) long term youth policy and similar development investment? It strikes me that much of the frustrations of this season are now explained. We probably can't afford a new striker and stay below 65%!
It may take a few years - but (IMHO) football clubs will soon find their own levels based upon their appeal and supporter base - and not merely upon some Arab or Russian oligarch with and ego and surplus Dirhams and Rubles to waste.
A good or bad result? - this provocative thread invites your opinion!
Up the U’s!
|  | | |  |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 17:27 - Jan 5 with 411 views | burnsieespana |
Noah he might have had an idea it was coming although it was announced a few weeks into the new season.
I think it is now going to be incredibly hard to gain promotiuon from Div1 because the clubs with the biggest support will be able to spend so much more than sides like us.
I guess the ideal solution will be for the two Sheffield's and either Charlton or Huddersfield to get promotion this year with sides like Doncaster and Peterborough getting relegated.
I understand (although might not be the case) that the Championship has different rules (don't know what they are) so, will sides getting relegated immediately be subject to Div1 rules? If so poorly supported teams like Peterborough and Doncaster could have a massive problem.
The importance of developing and selling younger players is now even more important than ever before as is the need to really "ramp up" extra events at the WHCS and/or the training facility as this is all included in the turnover figure on which the wage cap is based.
Having a self made business man at out helm might just be of real help as he will understand and know how to maximise revenue. |  | | |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 18:39 - Jan 5 with 401 views | Gate16 |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 17:27 - Jan 5 by burnsieespana |
Noah he might have had an idea it was coming although it was announced a few weeks into the new season.
I think it is now going to be incredibly hard to gain promotiuon from Div1 because the clubs with the biggest support will be able to spend so much more than sides like us.
I guess the ideal solution will be for the two Sheffield's and either Charlton or Huddersfield to get promotion this year with sides like Doncaster and Peterborough getting relegated.
I understand (although might not be the case) that the Championship has different rules (don't know what they are) so, will sides getting relegated immediately be subject to Div1 rules? If so poorly supported teams like Peterborough and Doncaster could have a massive problem.
The importance of developing and selling younger players is now even more important than ever before as is the need to really "ramp up" extra events at the WHCS and/or the training facility as this is all included in the turnover figure on which the wage cap is based.
Having a self made business man at out helm might just be of real help as he will understand and know how to maximise revenue. |
..... and yet we seem to have made some inexplicable decisions in spite of the constraints be them Robbie's or the new wider measures.
1) In his statement Robbie says we will have a real go at trying to get sixth spot yet everyone can see that we desperately need a striker but nobody has been signed.
If we managed to sneak into the play-offs and gained promotion we would
hopefully get the "watershed" 7,000 attendances, gain more revenue and come (probably) under different rules. Incredible to me that we are not doing more to make this a reality.
2) Much talk about young players and how important they are yet the ones we have got never seem to get close to the first team squad - what is going wrong ?
|  | | |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 18:50 - Jan 5 with 402 views | Daniel |
Personally I'm glad a rule like this is finally being forced through. I don't think it'll be as bad as first feared for us as the club now has the commercial infrastructure behind it, which it hasn't previously had, and is over and above that of other clubs in our league.
One query I have often had on a ruling like this though is what is to stop a rich chairman from paying over the odds to sponsor something at the club to bring in a larger income. For example, Jobserve (owned by the chairman) sponsors the east stand - if that sponsorship just happened to cost £300k more per season then that could be a loophole to make a subsidy payment. |  | | |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 19:29 - Jan 5 with 389 views | Baldrick |
I did mention the new league rules in another posting on here when you answered my posting.
4-4-2 or not just how many times have we seen Ward play the same system one man up front and at home.
As for any foresite by our chairman to blood our own youth, why did we bring in a young player wots his name Thomas and where is he now ?
If we dont have these young players now in the reserves where are they or is Thomas the start of our big push out of this league.
I still believe if we had a manager with a bit of flare and balls !! I hate to say it perhaps a certain person at Bradford comes to mind we might get the gates ! |  | | |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 19:54 - Jan 5 with 386 views | Gate16 |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 19:29 - Jan 5 by Baldrick |
I did mention the new league rules in another posting on here when you answered my posting.
4-4-2 or not just how many times have we seen Ward play the same system one man up front and at home.
As for any foresite by our chairman to blood our own youth, why did we bring in a young player wots his name Thomas and where is he now ?
If we dont have these young players now in the reserves where are they or is Thomas the start of our big push out of this league.
I still believe if we had a manager with a bit of flare and balls !! I hate to say it perhaps a certain person at Bradford comes to mind we might get the gates ! |
Couldn't agree more. | | | |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 20:37 - Jan 5 with 378 views | noah4x4 |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 18:50 - Jan 5 by Daniel |
Personally I'm glad a rule like this is finally being forced through. I don't think it'll be as bad as first feared for us as the club now has the commercial infrastructure behind it, which it hasn't previously had, and is over and above that of other clubs in our league.
One query I have often had on a ruling like this though is what is to stop a rich chairman from paying over the odds to sponsor something at the club to bring in a larger income. For example, Jobserve (owned by the chairman) sponsors the east stand - if that sponsorship just happened to cost £300k more per season then that could be a loophole to make a subsidy payment. |
I don't think it is designed to limit one's playing squad budget just to a strict ratio of match day attendances - as one can freely top it up by revenue from "commerical activity" and/or player sales.
It seems to me that this is all about clubs living within their means and the Football League then not having the annual embarrassment of some going into administration. In that respect, this regulation should be welcomed.
Hence, I see little wrong with an owner pumping in more money by buying sponsorships, although it should perhaps require some tangible evidence of that investment having genuine commerical benefit and reasonable pricing (e.g. such as the 'naming rights' promoting Jobserve in the example). However, if it is just a bung to temporarily inflate the playing budget in some unsustainable way (hence the club's wage bill rockets), that just invites trouble. Maybe somebody knows the rules that will apply to distinguish between these two contrary situations?
| | | |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 21:12 - Jan 5 with 373 views | Daniel |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 19:29 - Jan 5 by Baldrick |
I did mention the new league rules in another posting on here when you answered my posting.
4-4-2 or not just how many times have we seen Ward play the same system one man up front and at home.
As for any foresite by our chairman to blood our own youth, why did we bring in a young player wots his name Thomas and where is he now ?
If we dont have these young players now in the reserves where are they or is Thomas the start of our big push out of this league.
I still believe if we had a manager with a bit of flare and balls !! I hate to say it perhaps a certain person at Bradford comes to mind we might get the gates ! |
Baldrick, I assume you are referring to Casey Thomas who was brought in on loan from Swansea. His loan ended a couple of days ago... | | | |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 22:26 - Jan 5 with 368 views | Baldrick |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 21:12 - Jan 5 by Daniel |
Baldrick, I assume you are referring to Casey Thomas who was brought in on loan from Swansea. His loan ended a couple of days ago... |
Now that is a prime example what a waste of time a player on loan who I have no doubt is no better than what we have in the reserves.
Or perhaps we dont have a reserve side ????????????? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 20:05 - Jan 6 with 345 views | wessex_exile |
| 65% Rule - R we F@#*&#$? on 22:26 - Jan 5 by Baldrick |
Now that is a prime example what a waste of time a player on loan who I have no doubt is no better than what we have in the reserves.
Or perhaps we dont have a reserve side ????????????? |
To be fair to Casey, he arrived with heralds trumpetting potential, then promptly blew a big raspberry at Crewe - he was rubbish |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
