So Ollie has spoken up to say he is against a League salary cap.

Made all the more awkward after Philip Day said he was in favour of one.

Good to see there is no party line that must be obeyed.

Oh no! Two people have differing views on something. "Totes awks" as the kids would say.

Salary cap is a stupid idea especially in league 2. Just leave footballers alone!

As long clubs do not spend money they have not got leave well alone punish the ones that have to go into administration by relegation.

Salary cap isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just the fairness of it will be questioned from how it's implemented. Forcing the current FFP rules without allowing owners to tick a box opting out is possibly the fairest, but it makes it more difficult for lesser supported clubs to move up the pyramid. A fixed number means the big clubs don't see any benefit from their superior income.

If it is done, it would allow clubs to pay off debts and invest in infrastructure rather than blowing everything on the playing budget, like many do right now.

This is where Golly will come and argue against a salary cap, I have to say I think he's right.

Providing the club can evidence that they can afford their outlay (be it through owner contributions, ticket/player sales, share issues, whatever), they should be free to spend as they wish.

I know the argument is that it's about a level playing field, but football has never had that. Even when their was a maximum wage in the game, the bigger clubs used to top up the players wages with second jobs at various companies with strong links to the club itself.

There is plenty of financial unfairness in the game, but I don't think imposing a salary cap is the best way to resolve it.

Salary cap a good idea but shouldn't just be a blanket amount. They were talking about 1.5 million for league 2. What if a big club dropped into the division. If Bolton find themselves debt free then they can easily generate enough money for a comfortable budget of 3 million. It should be done on turnover, but that is when your run into problems with clubs bending the rules. Derby, for instance set up a holding company, sold the ground into that company (held by the same owner) then it shows on the balance sheet as a huge profit and boosts the turnover. Then Wayne Rooney signs. It's a tough one!

If you have a salary cap of £1.5m but a turnover of £4m, then transfer fees will go through the roof as selling clubs cash in on players rather than letting them expire and buying clubs snap up players for a fee reducing the number of offers that player has on the table.

It's a tough one and I think it needs some serious thought. Some of the loopholes need closing like Derby and owners sponsoring their ground for an over-inflated rate and then the cap being a percentage of turnover.

It will make more problems than it solves.  The big clubs will find a way round it like Man. City did.

Other ideas are club directors registering a bond to cover wages etc and more stringent checking of accounts for example.

Perhaps we should have the inevitable free for all, just for one season, and see where everybody ends up?

Players allowed to take drugs / monkey gland treatment (Wolves did this in the years preceding WW2 under a dastardly manager named Buckley!) Just imagine if it was a free for all with hallucinogens being allowed, coke sniffed at a phenomenal rate (don't try this at home children) and various other pick me ups enhancing performances. Is it really that different to seeing the likes of the super rich clubs buying all the world's best players and setting them loose against mere mortals?

At least it would be entertaining. The Buckley story below, is fascinating reading.

https://thesefootballtimes.co/2015/08/05/the-story-of-frank-buckley-and-monkey-glands-at-wolves/

The man responsible for balancing the clubs books believes its a good idea...

The man charged with building a succesful team doesnt ...  

How odd   ::)

The simple solution is to tighten FFP rules and not have the token gesture they have at the minute.

Quoted from diehardmariner

This is where Golly will come and argue against a salary cap, I have to say I think he's right.

Providing the club can evidence that they can afford their outlay (be it through owner contributions, ticket/player sales, share issues, whatever), they should be free to spend as they wish.

I know the argument is that it's about a level playing field, but football has never had that. Even when their was a maximum wage in the game, the bigger clubs used to top up the players wages with second jobs at various companies with strong links to the club itself.

There is plenty of financial unfairness in the game, but I don't think imposing a salary cap is the best way to resolve it.

I totally agree with you agreeing with me.

Take Brentford as an example. They spent millions and millions setting up their system of buying the best untapped young talent from all over Europe. As have Bristol City. And Oxford and Wycombe are both going down the same route.

Brentford are now in the position where through player sales they are technically making a profit year on year and are being held up as an example of a well run club living within its means. Totally ignoring the fact that Brentford owners have purchased £55m worth of shares in the club since they started their “project” as well as building a new stadium in prime development land off M4.

Clubs should be free to invest heavily if they choose to.

Chairman - we must pull the purse strings to keep the club alive

Manager - I don’t have enough money to spend


90% of clubs up and down the country will be like this