The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Wednesday 18th December) - Is the Championship imploding financially?

[Ellandback1]

Good Morning. It's Wednesday 18th December, and here are the latest headlines from Elland Road...


Are Sky Sports losing interest in Leeds?

Nottingham Forest and West Brom have both had more live broadcasts from Sky Sports than Leeds this season.

In recent years, not a month would go by without a game being rescheduled for the purpose of live viewing by the Satellite Sports giant, however as it stands Leeds have currently been televised seven times this campaign whilst Nottingham Forest (8) and West Brom (11) have leap frogged them.

Are Leeds not seen as such a big draw compared to the other two? Who would you choose to feature as the 5 biggest teams in the Championship?





Should there be financial caps in the Championship?

Luton Town chief executive Gary Sweet says they cannot financially compete in the Championship "mad house" and wants a salary cap enforced in the division. Last season Championship clubs ran up a record-high total of £307m in pre-tax losses. Spending on player and staff wages across the Championship exceeded clubs' revenue by 11%, and is expected to widen further this season.

We've got a situation where the rules say you're allowed to lose £39m over three years. So your starting point is, if you lose only £13m in one year, you've done well. You get a pat on the back. That's not our belief.

That's not where we've come from. I'm grounded in a business school that says you've got to make a profit, or at least break even. We are not in a position where we can lose £13m per year.

We haven't come in to it blindly. We've known all about the financial situation. But we were completely determined to do it our way and really not join in with the mad house.

That's really the best way I can describe it. We don't have those people in the boardroom who can just throw dozens of millions or maybe hundreds of millions in to the pot over a few years to try and get to that next level.

In 2017-18, overall spending on player and staff wages across the Championship exceeded clubs' revenue by 11%, and that gap is expected to widen to an all-time high for 2018-19. But Sweet would like to see that change with the introduction of a salary cap.

What would I do? I would certainly bring in a salary cap. We run our own salary cap, it's self-policed. We're still operating on the League Two and League One financial fair play rule, salary cost management, [whereby] we couldn't spend any more than 60% of our turnover on player salaries.

I would bring in a cap on agents' fees. You perhaps could only get promoted, for example, if you break even and you're clean. So there are a couple of ideas for you. They probably won't be taken up.

Thoughts? Could this work?





Leeds scouts target Swedish academy ace

Top flight Swedish outfit GAIS have confirmed that 16yo midfielder Nuha Jatta has joined Leeds United on trial. Jatta has travelled to Thorp Arch for a one-week trial to train with the Under 23s, after the Whites sent an official request to GAIS. The 16-year-old became the first 2003-born player to feature in the Swedish top-flight. He has also represented his country at U16 level.

[Chilli D]

Morning All,

I don't think Sky are losing interest in us at all. We may not have been on as many times as West Brom and Forest so far but we have Sky games against Preston and West Brom coming up in the next couple of weeks.
It may well be that Sky received complaints from other clubs about the amount of coverage we have been getting?
As someone who subscribes to Sky and lives over 200 miles from ER I am delighted when a game is shown live but I can understand others, like 64, who go to all the games and get frustrated at the constant changing of kick off times.

I think Gary Sweet's comments are an honest assessment and I can see other clubs going the way of Bolton and Bury in the near future because the current business model that clubs are running to isn't sustainable in the long run.

Chilli

[Ratscoot]

Top 5 in the Championship

Leeds by a mile the fact Sky haven’t shown us as much as the others so far will change as the season goes on
Forest
WBA
Rams
Wendies

Salary caps will not work the clubs/players will just use back door payments like hiring the wife, signing on fees , bonus’s etc...

Don’t know anything about young Nuha but many seem to be raving about him so hopefully he’s one for the future and it’s at Leeds

[HarryofOz]

I like the idea of salary caps in sport - not just the Championship. But I cannot see it working practically in football, the market is too big and too widespread.

The big clubs will never agree to it, and even if they did in one country by some miracle, there are too many other countries/leagues who will demand the workforce so that there will be a player drain to where the money is.

[mothbanquet]

The only reason we're not on Sky as much is because they've worn out their mute button for the crowds.

[Irish Ian]

Morning all.

Re Sky, the only reason I subscribe is that I can watch Leeds from the comfort of my sofa. Sky will follow the story of the EFL we are a part of that story but not it all.

Finances in football have always been a disaster, too many professional clubs, too many poor players on large salaries. Each town with it's own team competing for a slice if the TV pie.. It isnt sustainable.
It could be addressed in the UK using an NFL model but it wont. Foreign leagues would always entice players and managers away
But sadly it will continue to be a struggle for most

Top 5 clubs to watch

Us
Brentford
WBA
Forest
Owls.

[BGwhite]

The only reason we're not on Sky as much is because they've worn out their mute button for the crowds.

Was thinking along the same lines

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

[rab_rant]

Was thinking along the same lines

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

Yes it must be rather disconcerting to be broadcasting the Leeds fans chanting "Sky is Shite"

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[John in Louisiana]

I like the idea of salary caps in sport - not just the Championship. But I cannot see it working practically in football, the market is too big and too widespread.

The big clubs will never agree to it, and even if they did in one country by some miracle, there are too many other countries/leagues who will demand the workforce so that there will be a player drain to where the money is.

I am adamantly opposed to salary caps, otherwise known as restraint of trade. I am all for the players making as much as they can as quickly as they can. Their careers are quite short, after all.

Interesting to note how the lack of a salary cap has affected professional sports here in the US. Of the three major sports leagues, only Major League Baseball has no salary cap, and MLB has been, by far, the most competitive of the three. The World Series has been won by six different teams in the past six years and eight in the last eleven.

Salary caps are not effective in ensuring competitiveness; what they do is ensure (high) profitability for the team owners.

[The Subhuman]

Different type of sport though Baseball isn't it. Difficult to win multiple championships because like cricket it's more an team of individuals. The reasoning should be if you can afford the best 20 players you should dominate year in year out. The A's should have zero chance at a winning season. They're dirt poor compared to everyone else. What was the quote from Billy Beane (or Brad Pitt). "You have the Billionaire teams, you have the poorer teams, then there's 50 feet of s**t then us"

But individuals have good seasons and off seasons and add to that the sheer amount of games played (162) which is also a levelling factor. The NFL is a 16 game season. Less room for comebacks and falling apart

Think you'd find that the NFL would have had multiple different winners but for the cheating ethos of the Patriots added to the brilliance of BB. All their SB wins have an asterisk against them imo. From the Tuck rule to Deflategate. Matt Kelly pointed out that Bellichick should be renamed Bill Gates due to the amount of "Gate" episodes leveled at the Pats

We have had a stream of different NFC CG winners recently, the Pats helped out by one of footballs weakest divisions last 20 years which guarantees them a playoff place plus the AFC is historically weaker anyway.

NFL salary cap is headed toward 200 M in the next season or two so I wouldn't call it cheap either. If you took the cap limit away then you would see 2/3/4 superstar teams.

I'm not salary cap adverse for football, I would like to see more TV money filter down to the lower leagues, and getting rid of parachute payments would help that. Teams need to spend what they earn and not get a s**t load of money for failure.

[John in Louisiana]

Placing a salary cap on teams is a way to ensure non-competitiveness, especially when you add in television revenue sharing (and TV revenue is where the lion's share of the money comes from these days). I'm not sure what the breakdown is in the EPL, but in the NFL only about 15% of all revenue comes from the sale of tickets. Guaranteeing a team a profit, regardless of the quality of the team they put on the pitch, is no way to ensure that each team does its utmost to win.

There's a reason why so many NFL and NBA teams have never won a championship. Only five MLB teams have never won a championship, and all have at least reached the World Series. Twelve NFL teams have never won a title, and four have never even made it to the Super Bowl. Twelve NBA have also never won a title; six have never even made the finals.

The key thing to remember is that owners do not own clubs to win titles; they own clubs to make money. In the past, the best way to make money was to put the best possible team on the field. But as owners become less dependent on ticket sales for revenue, the need to field a winning team is far less urgent. Placing an artificial limit on player salaries only further reduces that need.

In any other industry, employers banding together to limit the amount of money to be paid employees is called restraint of trade and is decidedly illegal. Why should sports leagues be allowed to do this?

The relegation model does more to ensure a quality product than anything. Being relegated means a tremendous amount of lost revenue. I wish MLB would adopt that model.

[1964white]

I wish Sky had forgotten us as I wouldn't have to rise at 3am for the QPR game in the middle of January

[The Subhuman]

Sorry John, not buying it. I've explained why Baseball has had more varied winners and I don't think it has anything to do with salary cap. Lifting the cap in the NFL would result in less teams winning not more. the likes of NYG, NYJ, NEP, DAL would simply outspend their poorer relatives and win more

The NFC CG has had Seattle/LAR/Philly/SF/Carolina/NYG/NO/Arizona/Chicago/ Green Bay/Atlanta as champions in the last 13 seasons..America's richest team Dallas hasn't won in a while, remove the salary cap and they probably win most years and if not them then another NFCE team as that's where the money is

Lets look at the Premiership in that time - Man City - Chelsea - Man United - Leicester ...You'd have to go back to 2003 to add Arsenal. 5 teams have won the title since 2000. Only 6 teams in the history of the Premiership when money became god. Before that it was a more open competition. We didn't need a salary cap, no one could really afford to buy a championship.

[Chilli D]

Different type of sport though Baseball isn't it. Difficult to win multiple championships because like cricket it's more an team of individuals. The reasoning should be if you can afford the best 20 players you should dominate year in year out. The A's should have zero chance at a winning season. They're dirt poor compared to everyone else. What was the quote from Billy Beane (or Brad Pitt). "You have the Billionaire teams, you have the poorer teams, then there's 50 feet of s**t then us"

But individuals have good seasons and off seasons and add to that the sheer amount of games played (162) which is also a levelling factor. The NFL is a 16 game season. Less room for comebacks and falling apart

Think you'd find that the NFL would have had multiple different winners but for the cheating ethos of the Patriots added to the brilliance of BB. All their SB wins have an asterisk against them imo. From the Tuck rule to Deflategate. Matt Kelly pointed out that Bellichick should be renamed Bill Gates due to the amount of "Gate" episodes leveled at the Pats

We have had a stream of different NFC CG winners recently, the Pats helped out by one of footballs weakest divisions last 20 years which guarantees them a playoff place plus the AFC is historically weaker anyway.

NFL salary cap is headed toward 200 M in the next season or two so I wouldn't call it cheap either. If you took the cap limit away then you would see 2/3/4 superstar teams.

I'm not salary cap adverse for football, I would like to see more TV money filter down to the lower leagues, and getting rid of parachute payments would help that. Teams need to spend what they earn and not get a s**t load of money for failure.

I'm not sure you could call the AFC East division weak this season.
The Patriots are 11-3 and still haven't won the division.
Huge game against the Bills on Sunday. If the Bills win it they will both be 11-4 and it goes down to the final week. It's the late game as well so a late night for me on Sunday!
The Patriots have dominated the AFC over the last 20 years I agree but if I'm honest I don't think they will make the Superbowl this season, the Ravens are looking very strong and will rightly be the number 1 seed.
Difficult to pick one from the NFC but I'll go with the 49ers.

[The Subhuman]

I'm not sure you could call the AFC East division weak this season.
The Patriots are 11-3 and still haven't won the division.
Huge game against the Bills on Sunday. If the Bills win it they will both be 11-4 and it goes down to the final week. It's the late game as well so a late night for me on Sunday!
The Patriots have dominated the AFC over the last 20 years I agree but if I'm honest I don't think they will make the Superbowl this season, the Ravens are looking very strong and will rightly be the number 1 seed.
Difficult to pick one from the NFC but I'll go with the 49ers.

Not this season no, Bills through their D are firmly in play though I'm not a fan of the QB. Miami and NY both still need a lot of work.

[John in Louisiana]

Sorry John, not buying it. I've explained why Baseball has had more varied winners and I don't think it has anything to do with salary cap. Lifting the cap in the NFL would result in less teams winning not more. the likes of NYG, NYJ, NEP, DAL would simply outspend their poorer relatives and win more

The NFC CG has had Seattle/LAR/Philly/SF/Carolina/NYG/NO/Arizona/Chicago/ Green Bay/Atlanta as champions in the last 13 seasons..America's richest team Dallas hasn't won in a while, remove the salary cap and they probably win most years and if not them then another NFCE team as that's where the money is

Lets look at the Premiership in that time - Man City - Chelsea - Man United - Leicester ...You'd have to go back to 2003 to add Arsenal. 5 teams have won the title since 2000. Only 6 teams in the history of the Premiership when money became god. Before that it was a more open competition. We didn't need a salary cap, no one could really afford to buy a championship.

But there is a de facto salary cap in the EPL known as FFP. The big problem with it, though, is that the larger clubs have musch higher caps than the small ones.

If my understanding of FFP rules is correct, no club is allowed to operate at a significant loss for any period of time. If your club has greater revenues, therefore, it can spend more on all sorts of things, particularly player salaries. Clubs like scum, Arsenal, and Man City have massive stadiums so they can sell twice as many tickets as the smaller clubs and sell many, many more t-shirts, kits, and trinkets than the Southamptons of the world.

I agree, faaip, that (lack of) competitiveness is a big problem, but it's a bigger problem for the fans - who want to see their teams win a trophy or two - than it is for the owners - who want to make money. Until we can create a system that reconciles those two conflicting interests, while at the same time guarantees the players the income they deserve, we will continue to have these problems.