Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] Albion announce £67 million losses for 2019/20



vagabond

Well-known member
May 17, 2019
9,804
Brighton
Footballers get paid a lot due to supply and demand. There is a lot of demand to see top level football (mostly on TV) and there are relatively few people from the general population who are good enough to play in the EPL so supply is short.
In comparison the supply of nurses is good (compared to top level footballers) which is one reason they get paid less.

Of course it is relatively easy to argue that a nurse is 'worth' more than a footballer especially in current circumstances. It seems to me that certain free markets (top level footballers) probably need external regulation for the benefit of society. Basically cap player wages at some level and feed some of the financial benefits back to the people who watch and enjoy football.

It’s not about capping salaries only though. And no one would ever suggest anyone working in medical care is less important. That goes without saying, we all agree on that I’m sure.

Like it or not there are billions of pounds/Euros/dollars in our game. Due to licensing, sponsorship and tv deals across the world.

The question is, where do you want this money to go?

Me personally, I’d rather it actually goes to the players. Rather than the faceless money men. If you cap footballers salaries the money will just go club executives and television ceos, agents etc. It won’t solve anything, it’ll just move the money somewhere else in a less transparent way.
 




Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,437
Oxton, Birkenhead
It’s not about capping salaries only though. And no one would ever suggest anyone working in medical care is less important. That goes without saying, we all agree on that I’m sure.

Like it or not there are billions of pounds/Euros/dollars in our game. Due to licensing, sponsorship and tv deals across the world.

The question is, where do you want this money to go?

Me personally, I’d rather it actually goes to the players. Rather than the faceless money men. If you cap footballers salaries the money will just go club executives and television ceos, agents etc.

I would prefer for it to go to the clubs to build something sustainable for the future. I support Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club, not the current players, not the current manager, not even the current owner (lucky though we are to have him).
 


nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
14,367
Manchester
It’s not about capping salaries only though. And no one would ever suggest anyone working in medical care is less important. That goes without saying, we all agree on that I’m sure.

Like it or not there are billions of pounds/Euros/dollars in our game. Due to licensing, sponsorship and tv deals across the world.

The question is, where do you want this money to go?

Me personally, I’d rather it actually goes to the players. Rather than the faceless money men. If you cap footballers salaries the money will just go club executives and television ceos, agents etc. It won’t solve anything, it’ll just move the money somewhere else in a less transparent way.

I think this is more or less what the Blackpool owner did back in their Premier League season in 10/11. Vindicates your opinion if correct.
 


blue-shifted

Banned
Feb 20, 2004
7,645
a galaxy far far away
Those who feel strongly about player wages should cancel their Sky and BT subscriptions. It's the only way to restore some sort of sanity in the long term.

Clubs aren't going to voluntarily reduce the amount they pay on wages. They will keep signing the cheques until the day the bailiffs knock through the doors.
 


nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
18,198
Gods country fortnightly
Those who feel strongly about player wages should cancel their Sky and BT subscriptions. It's the only way to restore some sort of sanity in the long term.

Clubs aren't going to voluntarily reduce the amount they pay on wages. They will keep signing the cheques until the day the bailiffs knock through the doors.

What about a wages versus revenue cap?
 




Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,093
Given the size of our losses why the hell didn't the club sell Ben White to Liverpool for £35 million the moment Veltman put pen to paper?

I get selling one of your best players can be a wrench but only if they have been a regular starter. Here, the effect on the dressing room would have been zero as Ben White hadn't played for us for more than 3 years.
 


Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,622
GOSBTS
Given the size of our losses why the hell didn't the club sell Ben White to Liverpool for £35 million the moment Veltman put pen to paper?

I get selling one of your best players can be a wrench but only if they have been a regular starter. Here, the effect on the dressing room would have been zero as Ben White hadn't played for us for more than 3 years.

Because Tony Bloom is playing the long game, as we have seen since he took over. If Ben White potential is £50M, why would we take £35M all while Tony Bloom is happy subsidising the losses. Also Liverpool are also skint, and were never going to pay £35M for Ben White
 


vagabond

Well-known member
May 17, 2019
9,804
Brighton
Given the size of our losses why the hell didn't the club sell Ben White to Liverpool for £35 million the moment Veltman put pen to paper?

I get selling one of your best players can be a wrench but only if they have been a regular starter. Here, the effect on the dressing room would have been zero as Ben White hadn't played for us for more than 3 years.

Was there a bid from Liverpool from Ben White? I don’t believe that happened... Unless you saw a piece of news or a link I missed.

And £35m would be poor business. It’s not a fire sale.
 




blue-shifted

Banned
Feb 20, 2004
7,645
a galaxy far far away
What about a wages versus revenue cap?

The trouble is that the clubs are acting as individual entities rather than looking out for the system as a whole.

All the while clubs are so heavily financially incentivised to get to Europe or stay in the division, they won't sign up to anything which they feel disadvantages them. Any restrictions will be circumvented like with FFP.

The ivory tower ideal world would be that there was not a huge financial disparity between divisions, so that relegation (or failure to qualify for europe) did not lead to the terror that it does now for PL chairman .... but that's against everything the PL is all about
 


Pondicherry

Well-known member
May 25, 2007
1,071
Horsham
It’s not about capping salaries only though. And no one would ever suggest anyone working in medical care is less important. That goes without saying, we all agree on that I’m sure.

Like it or not there are billions of pounds/Euros/dollars in our game. Due to licensing, sponsorship and tv deals across the world.

The question is, where do you want this money to go?

Me personally, I’d rather it actually goes to the players. Rather than the faceless money men. If you cap footballers salaries the money will just go club executives and television ceos, agents etc. It won’t solve anything, it’ll just move the money somewhere else in a less transparent way.

I think this is a very difficult and fundamental question because really it goes to the heart of how society is structured. In your own reply you are saying (I think) that medical staff are more important than footballers and there is plenty of excess cash in football. So in simplistic terms why wouldn't you move some of that excess cash that currently goes to footballers, to the relatively poorly paid and more important nurses (a football windfall tax). I appreciate its not quite as simple as that but you see the principle.
 


blue-shifted

Banned
Feb 20, 2004
7,645
a galaxy far far away
I think this is a very difficult and fundamental question because really it goes to the heart of how society is structured. In your own reply you are saying (I think) that medical staff are more important than footballers and there is plenty of excess cash in football. So in simplistic terms why wouldn't you move some of that excess cash that currently goes to footballers, to the relatively poorly paid and more important nurses (a football windfall tax). I appreciate its not quite as simple as that but you see the principle.

Or just increase Income Tax for people with high incomes?

Our nation has chosen a different path
 




Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
22,320
Sweden
It’s an easy point to make.

But these very top end wages have been around since the Sky deal in the 90’s.

Like it or not, these huge sums are in football. So where do you propose they go? I’d rather the money goes to the players than to the money men.

My issue would be more with unregulated agents manufacturing mega million deals and creaming off the top of them.

It’s not about capping salaries only though. And no one would ever suggest anyone working in medical care is less important. That goes without saying, we all agree on that I’m sure.

Like it or not there are billions of pounds/Euros/dollars in our game. Due to licensing, sponsorship and tv deals across the world.

The question is, where do you want this money to go?

Me personally, I’d rather it actually goes to the players. Rather than the faceless money men. If you cap footballers salaries the money will just go club executives and television ceos, agents etc. It won’t solve anything, it’ll just move the money somewhere else in a less transparent way.

Often in this debate people reason as if its either a) the players or b) the owners/"money men"

but lets not forget about option c) cheaper ticket prices to make it more affordable & expanding stadiums to allow more people to watch their team
 


vagabond

Well-known member
May 17, 2019
9,804
Brighton
I think this is a very difficult and fundamental question because really it goes to the heart of how society is structured. In your own reply you are saying (I think) that medical staff are more important than footballers and there is plenty of excess cash in football. So in simplistic terms why wouldn't you move some of that excess cash that currently goes to footballers, to the relatively poorly paid and more important nurses (a football windfall tax). I appreciate its not quite as simple as that but you see the principle.

You are spot on, this is a very complex issue involving economics, commercialism, business rights and capitalist freedoms. We all agree, nurses, teachers, police are more important and deserve more. We can all assume that.

As I understand it footballs do pay an extraordinary amount of tax already, so that’s not the answer (happy to be corrected on that). And if we’re going to say to them, ok, we’ll keep your salaries. Again where do those billions go to? Who regulates that?

And if that’s peoples lines with footballers. What differentiates them with actors? Musicians?

Why should Elton John get £1m a gig?
Why should Keira Knightly get £3m for a movie? And so on.

What people want I think is to eradicate top earners completely in all industries. Not just football.
 


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,387
Burgess Hill
Do away with the transfer window let clubs trade when they need to, would probably also stop clubs getting desperate in the last few days/hours of a window and start offering silly money in pure panic mode.

So a team fighting off relegation goes and spunks millions on some star players for the last game whilst your club might just about be safe and then you best players hand in a transfer request and get sold pulling the rug from under your feet. Allowing anytime transfers won't change because the desperation will be there towards the end of the season.

The old system allowed transfers anytime up until about mid March and it was changed to give clubs a bit of stability.
 




drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,387
Burgess Hill
You are spot on, this is a very complex issue involving economics, commercialism, business rights and capitalist freedoms. We all agree, nurses, teachers, police are more important and deserve more. We can all assume that.

As I understand it footballs do pay an extraordinary amount of tax already, so that’s not the answer (happy to be corrected on that). And if we’re going to say to them, ok, we’ll keep your salaries. Again where do those billions go to? Who regulates that?

And if that’s peoples lines with footballers. What differentiates them with actors? Musicians?

Why should Elton John get £1m a gig?
Why should Keira Knightly get £3m for a movie? And so on.

What people want I think is to eradicate top earners completely in all industries. Not just football.

The thing is you would have to evaluate every single trade. Should a shop worker be paid more or less than a teacher or a binman. The fact is this country voted for a party that doesn't generally support the public sector and in particular the NHS. People vote that way because they don't want to pay more tax. The other thing is supply and demand. There are over 1m working in the NHS but there are only 500 footballers registered in EPL squads!
 


Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
13,303
Central Borneo / the Lizard
Given the size of our losses why the hell didn't the club sell Ben White to Liverpool for £35 million the moment Veltman put pen to paper?

I get selling one of your best players can be a wrench but only if they have been a regular starter. Here, the effect on the dressing room would have been zero as Ben White hadn't played for us for more than 3 years.

Because balancing the books isn't TB's objective, instead it's getting the best team he can afford on the pitch. It's his money after all.

Yes, he can sell a couple of players and have no losses, but that will be true next year, and the one after that, if push comes to shove. But I wouldn't bankroll a club I loved just to achieve 'balancing the books', I'd do it to achieve football success.
 


blue-shifted

Banned
Feb 20, 2004
7,645
a galaxy far far away
Because balancing the books isn't TB's objective, instead it's getting the best team he can afford on the pitch. It's his money after all.

Yes, he can sell a couple of players and have no losses, but that will be true next year, and the one after that, if push comes to shove. But I wouldn't bankroll a club I loved just to achieve 'balancing the books', I'd do it to achieve football success.

I agree with this.

In the Championship he was happy to absorb losses for the time it took us to get promoted.

I don't believe he is under any illusions that being chairman of BHA won't going to cost him many millions every year.

The aim is to keep losses to a sustainable level rather than break even as a club.

There is every reason to believe that in a couple of years with the effects of Covid hopefully a distant memory and 2 or 3 players breaking through from the academy every season, TB will be able to stem the flow.

But we must stay up ..... Big game tonight
 


Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,437
Oxton, Birkenhead
Because balancing the books isn't TB's objective, instead it's getting the best team he can afford on the pitch. It's his money after all.

Yes, he can sell a couple of players and have no losses, but that will be true next year, and the one after that, if push comes to shove. But I wouldn't bankroll a club I loved just to achieve 'balancing the books', I'd do it to achieve football success.

Perhaps. He is also likely to be trying to attract investors so perhaps he is willing to wear losses to ensure PL survival until that aim is achieved
 




blue-shifted

Banned
Feb 20, 2004
7,645
a galaxy far far away
The thing is you would have to evaluate every single trade. Should a shop worker be paid more or less than a teacher or a binman. The fact is this country voted for a party that doesn't generally support the public sector and in particular the NHS. People vote that way because they don't want to pay more tax. The other thing is supply and demand. There are over 1m working in the NHS but there are only 500 footballers registered in EPL squads!

This is very true.

But leaving politics out of it, I wonder if things have changed since COVID.

Would it be possible for a government or prospective government to gain the public's consent for very steep tax rises to pay off the covid debts, shore up our public health infrastructure and to give NHS workers a payrise they truly deserve?

My guess is that the answer to this question is depressing. Given the bill for Covid, I think we'll collectively turn our noses up and say "nope, not paying that". "Someone else should pay"
 


blue-shifted

Banned
Feb 20, 2004
7,645
a galaxy far far away
Perhaps. He is also likely to be trying to attract investors so perhaps he is willing to wear losses to ensure PL survival until that aim is achieved

Has he given any indication of wanting this? Why are you thinking it's likely?
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here