NFFC Financial Talk

[Knocker West]

Which year is that sorry?

I'm not going to go back & find it because it's actually irrelevant to the point that there is absolutely no physical reason why a club can't turn a profit & for this endless & frankly ludicrous argument that's been spinning on for far to long now, no one has actually offered the reason why it's impossible.

Just accepting that S**t happens doesn't mean it has to.

If you want further answers enroll at your local college on a basic economics course & they'll teach you what profits are & why companies can make them & that there isn't actually any real life barriers making it impossible for them to be turned.

I've already put one person in this thread on ignore for acting like an idiot, don't make me make it two.

You are far too intelligent to allow a disagreement on ideas to become personal, aren't you?

There come a time when it's just a waste of time.

I'll highlight why right here:

Quote 1 (my point)

...it's actually irrelevant to the point that there is absolutely no physical reason why a club can't turn a profit


Quote 2: (the counter argument)

No-one was suggesting it wasn't physically possible simply that it's very difficult to run at a profit

So I've literally been reduced to having to respond to an endless stream of ridiculous demands to prove a point that no actual counterargument has been presented for eg. "Break down for me how a mid-table provincial championship club is going to generate £20M of profit per season from additional "products or services". Tell me (a) the products and services, and (b) where the capital to fund those ventures comes from and © how they will pass the test of "football operations".",  or "discuss what the tax implications is of a multi-national putting all group revenues through a UK entity", these are absurd, ridiculous * unnecessary demands.

The point was made, the point still stands, & the endless ridiculous demands that I jump through bizarre hoops for no reason other than to satisfy some random weirdo on the internet is just never going to happen.

When it gets that crazy ignore is the best solution because you realize you're dealing with argumentative types who will, run it around endlessly in circles, for no obvious reason.

The point I made at the start still stands & is even repeated in the answers to me, so what actually is the argument?

Can a company run at a profit?

Yes.

/End argument

If anyone disagrees with the point it's up to them to demonstrate why it's wrong, not to make endless streams of ridiculous demands on me. & seeing as no one done that I see no point in me carrying on with the discussion, because I'm not here to have irrelevant arguments that don't actually counter the point I made in the first place.

[selborne garibaldi]

Which year is that sorry?

I'm not going to go back & find it because it's actually irrelevant to the point that there is absolutely no physical reason why a club can't turn a profit & for this endless & frankly ludicrous argument that's been spinning on for far to long now, no one has actually offered the reason why it's impossible.

Just accepting that S**t happens doesn't mean it has to.

If you want further answers enroll at your local college on a basic economics course & they'll teach you what profits are & why companies can make them & that there isn't actually any real life barriers making it impossible for them to be turned.

I've already put one person in this thread on ignore for acting like an idiot, don't make me make it two.

You are far too intelligent to allow a disagreement on ideas to become personal, aren't you?

There come a time when it's just a waste of time.

I'll highlight why right here:

Quote 1 (my point)

...it's actually irrelevant to the point that there is absolutely no physical reason why a club can't turn a profit


Quote 2: (the counter argument)

No-one was suggesting it wasn't physically possible simply that it's very difficult to run at a profit

So I've literally been reduced to having to respond to an endless stream of ridiculous demands to prove a point that no actual counterargument has been presented for eg. "Break down for me how a mid-table provincial championship club is going to generate £20M of profit per season from additional "products or services". Tell me (a) the products and services, and (b) where the capital to fund those ventures comes from and © how they will pass the test of "football operations".",  or "discuss what the tax implications is of a multi-national putting all group revenues through a UK entity", these are absurd, ridiculous * unnecessary demands.

The point was made, the point still stands, & the endless ridiculous demands that I jump through bizarre hoops for no reason other than to satisfy some random weirdo on the internet is just never going to happen.

When it gets that crazy ignore is the best solution because you realize you're dealing with argumentative types who will, run it around endlessly in circles, for no obvious reason.

The point I made at the start still stands & is even repeated in the answers to me, so what actually is the argument?

Can a company run at a profit?

Yes.

/End argument

If anyone disagrees with the point it's up to them to demonstrate why it's wrong, not to make endless streams of ridiculous demands on me. & seeing as no one done that I see no point in me carrying on with the discussion, because I'm not here to have irrelevant arguments that don't actually counter the point I made in the first place.

So, just to confirm, I'm not on ignore? or?

[selborne garibaldi]

So, just to confirm, I'm not on ignore? or?

--
I'll take that as a yes then. Excellent. 

Can we now continue to develop the discussion around why FFP and parachute payments are counter-productive to the notion of sustainable, aspirational, championship football clubs, without being interrupted by shouts of "but (insert non-football company here) make profits" every 5 seconds? Yes? Marvelous.

Have we discussed budget caps here before? I quite like them as a device to create a more level playing field; a constraint around resource usage and prioritization, whilst preserving sporting integrity and financial stability (to a degree).

[wassy04]

So, just to confirm, I'm not on ignore? or?

--
I'll take that as a yes then. Excellent. 

Can we now continue to develop the discussion around why FFP and parachute payments are counter-productive to the notion of sustainable, aspirational, championship football clubs, without being interrupted by shouts of "but (insert non-football company here) make profits" every 5 seconds? Yes? Marvelous.

Have we discussed budget caps here before? I quite like them as a device to create a more level playing field; a constraint around resource usage and prioritization, whilst preserving sporting integrity and financial stability (to a degree).

I think its just me on ignore twice  :D he's been on here a week and I've so far been called an idiot, a liar, moronic and bad at my job and that was just today. I have so far made no insults in return...

Salary caps is a really interesting concept as initially I thought it would be a great idea however I've been persuaded that it would just further increase the gap between lower leagues and Premier league. 

Given the idea was that relegated clubs would keep their currents wages they'd have a similar advantage to now. Some kind of cost control measure is essential though. Not really sure what would work best. Any suggestions?

Parachute payments are completely unnecessary too, just make it it so contracts legally have to have decreases based on relegation. 

Sadly, the only option I could see that would work to create sustainability would be to merge the EFL and premier league. At least the income would be shared more equitably then.

[Strawberry Avenger]

I did have the perverse thought to get through the current 'narrative' of what's happening in society at large, that football clubs could have let go of all their financially inclined posers that kick a ball around and instead?

On masse decided to play their Academies.   And in that scenario, just how well Forest would do?  And how much financially better off football would be if it could start again at 'grass roots.'

To agree to such a treaty...

As for Norwich.  At least they stick with a manager.  A plan.  They must be doing something right.

How many times have they been promoted in the last 20 years compared to Forest?

Our 'evil twin' of a club.  They, 'normal' conditions allowing, have around 30k attendance?

SA.

Greed means it will never happen, but conversely there's no excuse for the ridiculous finances that some clubs produce, especially when it's not necessary, or sustainable.

When bankers laid out the compelling vision for the future of Norwich City Football Club, that I mentioned above, as a ‘self-sustaining’ club, after they announced an operating profit for the financial year ending May 2011 – before the riches of the Premiership started to kick in – the club’s chairman & CEO were cited as ‘an exemplar’ of how banks and football clubs can work together to deliver a stable and manageable football club amidst the financial madness that can be English football.

The fact that City had also reduced their past debt burden by a hefty £4 million over the same financial year put a smile on the bankers’ faces & as I said, that was all before Norwich hit the dizzy heights of the Premiership that season & contrary to some nay sayers who could argue endlessly without ever producing an argument themselves, it isn't the only example, so there is no reason why some of these club produce the damaging figures they do, & they are damaging figures as clubs like Bury, Bolton & Wigan can attest to, when they finally have to address the financial messes they have walked into.

Our accounts are generally improving, & the club have mad it clear they wish to see them continue improve & for us to eventually become self sustainable, but it may take a while because the new owners came into a club that was effectively shut down financially & had no real revenue streams beyond the very basics, but we'll get there slowly & surely, & indeed, eventually all of football will have to get there, it's why FFP was introduced & whatever your views on FFP the actual reasoning behind it was because it was a necessity with so many clubs struggling financially due to mismanagement, as we saw in our own case,where Fawaz model was unsustainable & would have eventually led to our bankruptcy had the authorities not stepped in.

Interesting reply.  Ty.  

I, personally, find Norwich an interesting example as they're a club of comparable size (attendance wise...) and have beaten us 2 or 3 times to the Premier now in the last twenty years.  And look like they're going to do it again.

I remember 'that' season they spent £3 million to put together a whole squad whilst our squad was ill spent on and inflated wage wise and they got promoted and 'we' didn't.

FFP.  Hopefully it will save most clubs from themselves.  I'm not fond of the 'pull the ladder up' financial model introduced with the Premier.  I don't think it's done the game any good.

That being said.  We have to put our own house in order and believe we have the right owners to do just that.

Revenue.  Academy.  Ground improvements.  Coaching and Squad investment.  

I think it will come.  It was the 'lost in translation' Greek to Championship ideas.  It's not a cookie cutter translation.  So that (for me) mostly explains the mis steps and the 'wasted' money on journey men players.  Good intentions and all that, aren't enough.  Not in the Championship.

They finally have 'the right guy' in Hughton.  They should lend him as much support as they can.  And build something between Chris and Gary.  A collusion of ambition to get the Academy Cat 1.  And the 1st Team.  Prem' 1.

SA.

[selborne garibaldi]

So, just to confirm, I'm not on ignore? or?

--
I'll take that as a yes then. Excellent. 

Can we now continue to develop the discussion around why FFP and parachute payments are counter-productive to the notion of sustainable, aspirational, championship football clubs, without being interrupted by shouts of "but (insert non-football company here) make profits" every 5 seconds? Yes? Marvelous.

Have we discussed budget caps here before? I quite like them as a device to create a more level playing field; a constraint around resource usage and prioritization, whilst preserving sporting integrity and financial stability (to a degree).

I think its just me on ignore twice  :D he's been on here a week and I've so far been called an idiot, a liar, moronic and bad at my job and that was just today. I have so far made no insults in return...

Salary caps is a really interesting concept as initially I thought it would be a great idea however I've been persuaded that it would just further increase the gap between lower leagues and Premier league. 

Given the idea was that relegated clubs would keep their currents wages they'd have a similar advantage to now. Some kind of cost control measure is essential though. Not really sure what would work best. Any suggestions?

Parachute payments are completely unnecessary too, just make it it so contracts legally have to have decreases based on relegation. 

Sadly, the only option I could see that would work to create sustainability would be to merge the EFL and premier league. At least the income would be shared more equitably then.

I think that salary caps would need to be set at two levels; the first being an absolute maximum per player for that league (say, £20k/week in the Championship) and at a squad level (say, 60% of turnover of the football operations generated revenue).

That might allow the financially stronger teams to continue with a measure of advantage (bigger crowds, more sponsors, etc), but without distorting the player market so far that the best players can only achieve their maximum wage at a few teams. Things like playing time and sporting success may then become more important when a player is deciding whether to move or not.

Agree that contracts ought to have relegation clauses in them to help protect the club financially. This just makes sense and is surely only not included when a desperate team is struggling to negotiate with a new signing. There's a case here that the club needs protecting from itself in that scenario.

[wassy04]

So, just to confirm, I'm not on ignore? or?

--
I'll take that as a yes then. Excellent. 

Can we now continue to develop the discussion around why FFP and parachute payments are counter-productive to the notion of sustainable, aspirational, championship football clubs, without being interrupted by shouts of "but (insert non-football company here) make profits" every 5 seconds? Yes? Marvelous.

Have we discussed budget caps here before? I quite like them as a device to create a more level playing field; a constraint around resource usage and prioritization, whilst preserving sporting integrity and financial stability (to a degree).

I think its just me on ignore twice  :D he's been on here a week and I've so far been called an idiot, a liar, moronic and bad at my job and that was just today. I have so far made no insults in return...

Salary caps is a really interesting concept as initially I thought it would be a great idea however I've been persuaded that it would just further increase the gap between lower leagues and Premier league. 

Given the idea was that relegated clubs would keep their currents wages they'd have a similar advantage to now. Some kind of cost control measure is essential though. Not really sure what would work best. Any suggestions?

Parachute payments are completely unnecessary too, just make it it so contracts legally have to have decreases based on relegation. 

Sadly, the only option I could see that would work to create sustainability would be to merge the EFL and premier league. At least the income would be shared more equitably then.

I think that salary caps would need to be set at two levels; the first being an absolute maximum per player for that league (say, £20k/week in the Championship) and at a squad level (say, 60% of turnover of the football operations generated revenue).

That might allow the financially stronger teams to continue with a measure of advantage (bigger crowds, more sponsors, etc), but without distorting the player market so far that the best players can only achieve their maximum wage at a few teams. Things like playing time and sporting success may then become more important when a player is deciding whether to move or not.

Agree that contracts ought to have relegation clauses in them to help protect the club financially. This just makes sense and is surely only not included when a desperate team is struggling to negotiate with a new signing. There's a case here that the club needs protecting from itself in that scenario.

I think that last point is the nail on the head, clubs need protecting from themselves. The incentives to run at a loss and to take risks to get ahead are so high with the reward of Premier league income. I think it will require a change in the way the league is run, needs to be as a unit rather each club looking out for itself. This would allow better regulation, its silly really as everyone wins.

I think both those ideas make sense, definitely limiting to 60% of turnover at a minimum. Again though, I don't think it'll work unless they ditch parachute payments. Rick Parry has been pretty vocal on this, he knows it's the main issue. So maybe something will come from it

[Tricky]

So, just to confirm, I'm not on ignore? or?

--
I'll take that as a yes then. Excellent. 

Can we now continue to develop the discussion around why FFP and parachute payments are counter-productive to the notion of sustainable, aspirational, championship football clubs, without being interrupted by shouts of "but (insert non-football company here) make profits" every 5 seconds? Yes? Marvelous.

Have we discussed budget caps here before? I quite like them as a device to create a more level playing field; a constraint around resource usage and prioritization, whilst preserving sporting integrity and financial stability (to a degree).

I think its just me on ignore twice  :D he's been on here a week and I've so far been called an idiot, a liar, moronic and bad at my job and that was just today. I have so far made no insults in return...

Salary caps is a really interesting concept as initially I thought it would be a great idea however I've been persuaded that it would just further increase the gap between lower leagues and Premier league. 

Given the idea was that relegated clubs would keep their currents wages they'd have a similar advantage to now. Some kind of cost control measure is essential though. Not really sure what would work best. Any suggestions?

Parachute payments are completely unnecessary too, just make it it so contracts legally have to have decreases based on relegation. 

Sadly, the only option I could see that would work to create sustainability would be to merge the EFL and premier league. At least the income would be shared more equitably then.

I think that salary caps would need to be set at two levels; the first being an absolute maximum per player for that league (say, £20k/week in the Championship) and at a squad level (say, 60% of turnover of the football operations generated revenue).

That might allow the financially stronger teams to continue with a measure of advantage (bigger crowds, more sponsors, etc), but without distorting the player market so far that the best players can only achieve their maximum wage at a few teams. Things like playing time and sporting success may then become more important when a player is deciding whether to move or not.

Agree that contracts ought to have relegation clauses in them to help protect the club financially. This just makes sense and is surely only not included when a desperate team is struggling to negotiate with a new signing. There's a case here that the club needs protecting from itself in that scenario.

I think that last point is the nail on the head, clubs need protecting from themselves. The incentives to run at a loss and to take risks to get ahead are so high with the reward of Premier league income. I think it will require a change in the way the league is run, needs to be as a unit rather each club looking out for itself. This would allow better regulation, its silly really as everyone wins.

I think both those ideas make sense, definitely limiting to 60% of turnover at a minimum. Again though, I don't think it'll work unless they ditch parachute payments. Rick Parry has been pretty vocal on this, he knows it's the main issue. So maybe something will come from it

I think there is a third option that hasn't been discussed on this thread, and that is Agents Fees. It is time the PL, EFL, UEFA, FIFA and all other interested parties in running the game banned clubs from paying Agents Fees! Why does the club have to shell out for someone who is trying to get more money out of them for an individual player? That's like asking my boss to pay my Union membership every month!!

In the 2018-19 season, Salford City and Chesterfield, both in the National League, paid an annual fee of £70,000 in agents fees. Forest paid out £1.1M in the same period but were one of the lowest spenders even though we brought in 12 new signings (lots of freebies and loans). Throughout the Championship in this period, a mind blowing £49.3M was paid out in agents fees. In the season before that, throughout England, the total cost of Agents Fees had risen by 38% from £160M to £220M.  That is a staggering amount of money being spent unnecessarily by clubs, when it should be the players paying the fees.

Agents earn between 1% and 10% of a players annual earnings or take a % fee from a transfer they have over seen. So, just for the sake of arguing, Carvalo was bought for £13M. Mendes would have been paid between £130,000 and £1.3M for getting that deal done. That is a disgrace!! Yet nothing is being done about it.

If players want an agent, fine, let them have them. But the players must pay for the services, not the clubs.

I hope my stats have backed up the point i am trying to make  :angel:

[Strawberry Avenger]

So, just to confirm, I'm not on ignore? or?

--
I'll take that as a yes then. Excellent. 

Can we now continue to develop the discussion around why FFP and parachute payments are counter-productive to the notion of sustainable, aspirational, championship football clubs, without being interrupted by shouts of "but (insert non-football company here) make profits" every 5 seconds? Yes? Marvelous.

Have we discussed budget caps here before? I quite like them as a device to create a more level playing field; a constraint around resource usage and prioritization, whilst preserving sporting integrity and financial stability (to a degree).

I think its just me on ignore twice  :D he's been on here a week and I've so far been called an idiot, a liar, moronic and bad at my job and that was just today. I have so far made no insults in return...

Salary caps is a really interesting concept as initially I thought it would be a great idea however I've been persuaded that it would just further increase the gap between lower leagues and Premier league. 

Given the idea was that relegated clubs would keep their currents wages they'd have a similar advantage to now. Some kind of cost control measure is essential though. Not really sure what would work best. Any suggestions?

Parachute payments are completely unnecessary too, just make it it so contracts legally have to have decreases based on relegation. 

Sadly, the only option I could see that would work to create sustainability would be to merge the EFL and premier league. At least the income would be shared more equitably then.

I think that salary caps would need to be set at two levels; the first being an absolute maximum per player for that league (say, £20k/week in the Championship) and at a squad level (say, 60% of turnover of the football operations generated revenue).

That might allow the financially stronger teams to continue with a measure of advantage (bigger crowds, more sponsors, etc), but without distorting the player market so far that the best players can only achieve their maximum wage at a few teams. Things like playing time and sporting success may then become more important when a player is deciding whether to move or not.

Agree that contracts ought to have relegation clauses in them to help protect the club financially. This just makes sense and is surely only not included when a desperate team is struggling to negotiate with a new signing. There's a case here that the club needs protecting from itself in that scenario.

I think that last point is the nail on the head, clubs need protecting from themselves. The incentives to run at a loss and to take risks to get ahead are so high with the reward of Premier league income. I think it will require a change in the way the league is run, needs to be as a unit rather each club looking out for itself. This would allow better regulation, its silly really as everyone wins.

I think both those ideas make sense, definitely limiting to 60% of turnover at a minimum. Again though, I don't think it'll work unless they ditch parachute payments. Rick Parry has been pretty vocal on this, he knows it's the main issue. So maybe something will come from it

I think protecting the overall League structure is important.  I didn't like the 'pulling up of the ladder' with the 'Premier' League.  It just distorts (and has) the league with the incredible disparity between 'Premier' and Championship and on down.  

It will always be Division 1 to me.

SA.

[wassy04]

So, just to confirm, I'm not on ignore? or?

--
I'll take that as a yes then. Excellent. 

Can we now continue to develop the discussion around why FFP and parachute payments are counter-productive to the notion of sustainable, aspirational, championship football clubs, without being interrupted by shouts of "but (insert non-football company here) make profits" every 5 seconds? Yes? Marvelous.

Have we discussed budget caps here before? I quite like them as a device to create a more level playing field; a constraint around resource usage and prioritization, whilst preserving sporting integrity and financial stability (to a degree).

I think its just me on ignore twice  :D he's been on here a week and I've so far been called an idiot, a liar, moronic and bad at my job and that was just today. I have so far made no insults in return...

Salary caps is a really interesting concept as initially I thought it would be a great idea however I've been persuaded that it would just further increase the gap between lower leagues and Premier league. 

Given the idea was that relegated clubs would keep their currents wages they'd have a similar advantage to now. Some kind of cost control measure is essential though. Not really sure what would work best. Any suggestions?

Parachute payments are completely unnecessary too, just make it it so contracts legally have to have decreases based on relegation. 

Sadly, the only option I could see that would work to create sustainability would be to merge the EFL and premier league. At least the income would be shared more equitably then.

I think that salary caps would need to be set at two levels; the first being an absolute maximum per player for that league (say, £20k/week in the Championship) and at a squad level (say, 60% of turnover of the football operations generated revenue).

That might allow the financially stronger teams to continue with a measure of advantage (bigger crowds, more sponsors, etc), but without distorting the player market so far that the best players can only achieve their maximum wage at a few teams. Things like playing time and sporting success may then become more important when a player is deciding whether to move or not.

Agree that contracts ought to have relegation clauses in them to help protect the club financially. This just makes sense and is surely only not included when a desperate team is struggling to negotiate with a new signing. There's a case here that the club needs protecting from itself in that scenario.

I think that last point is the nail on the head, clubs need protecting from themselves. The incentives to run at a loss and to take risks to get ahead are so high with the reward of Premier league income. I think it will require a change in the way the league is run, needs to be as a unit rather each club looking out for itself. This would allow better regulation, its silly really as everyone wins.

I think both those ideas make sense, definitely limiting to 60% of turnover at a minimum. Again though, I don't think it'll work unless they ditch parachute payments. Rick Parry has been pretty vocal on this, he knows it's the main issue. So maybe something will come from it

I think there is a third option that hasn't been discussed on this thread, and that is Agents Fees. It is time the PL, EFL, UEFA, FIFA and all other interested parties in running the game banned clubs from paying Agents Fees! Why does the club have to shell out for someone who is trying to get more money out of them for an individual player? That's like asking my boss to pay my Union membership every month!!

In the 2018-19 season, Salford City and Chesterfield, both in the National League, paid an annual fee of £70,000 in agents fees. Forest paid out £1.1M in the same period but were one of the lowest spenders even though we brought in 12 new signings (lots of freebies and loans). Throughout the Championship in this period, a mind blowing £49.3M was paid out in agents fees. In the season before that, throughout England, the total cost of Agents Fees had risen by 38% from £160M to £220M.  That is a staggering amount of money being spent unnecessarily by clubs, when it should be the players paying the fees.

Agents earn between 1% and 10% of a players annual earnings or take a % fee from a transfer they have over seen. So, just for the sake of arguing, Carvalo was bought for £13M. Mendes would have been paid between £130,000 and £1.3M for getting that deal done. That is a disgrace!! Yet nothing is being done about it.

If players want an agent, fine, let them have them. But the players must pay for the services, not the clubs.

I hope my stats have backed up the point i am trying to make  :angel:

Yeah I agree I don't don't you need yo get rid completely, just needs to be capped. Fifa actually tried to do this and the agents all kicked off. Its definitely worth doing though

[Marinakis Red]

Forest have got to do better financially. The amount we spend on players with no return or sell on fees is ridiculous. This figures highlight the continuous mistakes in that department.

Fortunately marinakis has papered over the failings of others with the 20m.

[selborne garibaldi]

I think its just me on ignore twice  :D he's been on here a week and I've so far been called an idiot, a liar, moronic and bad at my job and that was just today. I have so far made no insults in return...

Salary caps is a really interesting concept as initially I thought it would be a great idea however I've been persuaded that it would just further increase the gap between lower leagues and Premier league. 

Given the idea was that relegated clubs would keep their currents wages they'd have a similar advantage to now. Some kind of cost control measure is essential though. Not really sure what would work best. Any suggestions?

Parachute payments are completely unnecessary too, just make it it so contracts legally have to have decreases based on relegation. 

Sadly, the only option I could see that would work to create sustainability would be to merge the EFL and premier league. At least the income would be shared more equitably then.

I think that salary caps would need to be set at two levels; the first being an absolute maximum per player for that league (say, £20k/week in the Championship) and at a squad level (say, 60% of turnover of the football operations generated revenue).

That might allow the financially stronger teams to continue with a measure of advantage (bigger crowds, more sponsors, etc), but without distorting the player market so far that the best players can only achieve their maximum wage at a few teams. Things like playing time and sporting success may then become more important when a player is deciding whether to move or not.

Agree that contracts ought to have relegation clauses in them to help protect the club financially. This just makes sense and is surely only not included when a desperate team is struggling to negotiate with a new signing. There's a case here that the club needs protecting from itself in that scenario.

I think that last point is the nail on the head, clubs need protecting from themselves. The incentives to run at a loss and to take risks to get ahead are so high with the reward of Premier league income. I think it will require a change in the way the league is run, needs to be as a unit rather each club looking out for itself. This would allow better regulation, its silly really as everyone wins.

I think both those ideas make sense, definitely limiting to 60% of turnover at a minimum. Again though, I don't think it'll work unless they ditch parachute payments. Rick Parry has been pretty vocal on this, he knows it's the main issue. So maybe something will come from it

I think there is a third option that hasn't been discussed on this thread, and that is Agents Fees. It is time the PL, EFL, UEFA, FIFA and all other interested parties in running the game banned clubs from paying Agents Fees! Why does the club have to shell out for someone who is trying to get more money out of them for an individual player? That's like asking my boss to pay my Union membership every month!!

In the 2018-19 season, Salford City and Chesterfield, both in the National League, paid an annual fee of £70,000 in agents fees. Forest paid out £1.1M in the same period but were one of the lowest spenders even though we brought in 12 new signings (lots of freebies and loans). Throughout the Championship in this period, a mind blowing £49.3M was paid out in agents fees. In the season before that, throughout England, the total cost of Agents Fees had risen by 38% from £160M to £220M.  That is a staggering amount of money being spent unnecessarily by clubs, when it should be the players paying the fees.

Agents earn between 1% and 10% of a players annual earnings or take a % fee from a transfer they have over seen. So, just for the sake of arguing, Carvalo was bought for £13M. Mendes would have been paid between £130,000 and £1.3M for getting that deal done. That is a disgrace!! Yet nothing is being done about it.

If players want an agent, fine, let them have them. But the players must pay for the services, not the clubs.

I hope my stats have backed up the point i am trying to make  :angel:

Yeah I agree I don't don't you need yo get rid completely, just needs to be capped. Fifa actually tried to do this and the agents all kicked off. Its definitely worth doing though

Interestingly, one of the reasons that the agents kicked-off about the proposed change was that the agents feared not being paid by the players they represented on-time; clubs being a better bet for on-time payments than players. There are also tax implications for players, which would, in effect, mean they needed more money from the club to achieve the same income. 

Still seems bizarre to me that an agent can legally represent both sides (player and club) in a negotiation, and that both the clubs and the players are happy with this arrangement. But then, football isn't like other businesses, is it?