by YorkshireRoyal99 »
18 Jan 2024 11:23
WestYorksRoyal rabidbee One of Parry's comments before the parliamentary committee the other day was that the EFL would prefer to move from the current set up (losses of up to £39m over three years) to squad-cost ratios (I think he said limited to ~70% of turnover) which would enable the league to move from acting retrospectively (punishing a club for something it did three years ago) to acting prospectively (as he put it), for instance preventing the registration of any player that would take the club over the squad-cost ratio.
The whole session was interesting, and did contradict some of the received wisdom often spouted on here. The EFL are not terrified about an independent regulator, Rick Parry repeatedly demanded MPs hurry up and introduce one; they aren't worried they will lose their powers, Parry wants the regulator to take on responsibility for the owners and directors test, and for the financial sustainability rules (whatever they will be).
But it all ties into the PL settlement. I believe that, in addition to parachute payments, the PL are trying to require that the ratio would be 90% for relegated side as it's harder for them to get wages back under control. This just bakes in inequality even further. Then there is also uncertainty on how to allow for transfer revenue, which will be one off for accounting purposes compared with wages which will be tied into 2 - 3 contracts.
To be fair, how to ensure clubs are sustainable whilst not discouraging investment or undermining competing is a bloody difficult question. But obviously it shouldn't be up the the PL and EFL to mark their own homework.
In terms of wages, I have always wondered why it isn't made mandatory to have a % wage drop included in players' contracts across all PL clubs. If that came out at 20% across your entire squad for example, that's a significant saving made before you have even begun to move some of your players on which would inevitably happen.
Practically, whilst it may put players off from joining clubs, it wouldn't deter everybody and also supports a club from a sustainability point of view, more so than passing them money to play with upon relegation. I've always thought that parachute payments just invites clubs to gamble back for promotion, look at West Brom for example.