Jump to content

Bob8

Coach
  • Content Count

    11,854
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Bob8 last won the day on January 25

Bob8 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,150 Excellent

Member Profile

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

13,587 profile views
  1. I see, so you would not object to per diem payments or generous expenses? That makes sense.
  2. The danger is that when no-one appears to be suffering the consequences of debt, the only side shown is from the adverts.
  3. They will be spending a chunk away from home in Toronto. If it were a job, I would expect accommodation, food and services to be thrown in and a per diem. How would that be considered in the cap?
  4. It would create a more level playing field, which SL17 cited as the main reason for the cap.
  5. Thanks, you make very fair points. As we agree that Toronto would be less appealling as an employer, a level playing field would require them to be able to offer more money. That Mr Beaumont has indeed done some fine work
  6. I think it has to be compared to what the alternative to TWP offers. Which might seem cynical.
  7. Thanks! I am actually slightly surprised. For most players, I would imagine Toronto, with its disruption to family and social life, would actually be less appealing to play for than clubs in Lancs or Yorkshire. Would you agree with that?
  8. This does come to the purpose of the cap. If it is to keep an even competition, then there should be a special dispensation. Essentially, it would be like London weighting or travel expenses. Traveling regularly to Toronto is a major imposition on family life and exhausting. To be equally competitive for players, I would say they need to be able to offer more cash. If it is to stop clubs bankrupting themselves and each other, then any dispensation should be like London weighting, but be linkined to demonstrating it is more sustainable.
  9. You are in a very good position to answer this, what do you see the main intended function of the salary cap?
  10. Man of Kent did a confused smilie to this, so I think we should make it even easier for him. Though I think you have already explained it clearly. @Man of Kent, It could be suggested that the salary cap is to lessen the chances of clubs bankrupting themselves. This would apply both directly, but not allowing them to spend to much money. But, it also applies in another way. If one club starts spending a large amount of money on players wages, it forces all the other clubs to compete and pay more too. Of course, it is a little different with Toronto, as for most players having to spend much of your year in Canada will be a drawback. They might have to spend more to compete evenly for the same players. If you find this too complex, let me know which bit and I will be happy to explain further
  11. If you would be so kind as to clarify for me, you are saying that the salary cap is to give traditional clubs the best chance? But, it would be a selective pressure against the weakest clubs?
  12. Indeed, I do find people pretending the rules are sacred to be a little obtuse.
  13. Does that mean they should get the 1.8 million in funding too?
  14. It comes back to what the salary cap is for. If is it to give the traditional clubs the best possible chance, then there can be no dispensation - thems the rules. If it is to lessen (to the forum thickies - that does not mean eliminate) the chance of clubs going bankrupt, then it is arguable. If it is to give an even chance, there must be dispensation as being in Canada is a major disadvantage.
  15. I would say that fits in with clubs not bankrupting themselves.
×
×
  • Create New...