One of the biggest problems with English football is greedy players

Who are happy to take huge players and sit on the bench at best. There are so many who do what's best for their pocket not their career and it has absolutely no positive effect on football at all but many negative.
The england team suffers because talented players signed for big clubs on huge wages knowing theyd hardly play so they've missed a big stage in their development and never got the experience that they needed.
The smaller teams suffer because it pushes wages up for everybody meaning they can't compete at all.
The fans suffer because it's us who pays these huge wages for players sat on their arses.

So what do you do about it? You can let the reserve players enter the JPT as a premier league b. You can let them join league 3 as a premier b. Marvellous. That helps with the England team Issue a bit but the fans suffer even more from having to watch it, it doesn't help ticket prices at all and doesn't help small teams at all.
You can loan all these players out which doesn't help fans at all as we still have to pay the wages and it doesn't really help the small teams because they borrow a load of players who then go back.

So what's the solution?
Set a base wage for each league. Every single player in each league gets the same amount per week. Let's say £1000 in league 2, £2000 a week in league 1, £5000 in the championship and £10000 a week in the premiership. Every player signed on professional contracts to clubs in these leagues get this wage every week. It's heir basic wage. If a player signs a 3 year contract whilst in the premiership and they get relegated after the first year then their wages drop to championship wages. Get promoted and get rise.
After that clubs are free to pay ANY amount of bonuses for their players IF THEY PLAY. No made up 'heres an extra £20k for having black hair' bonus. They can only get their bonus if they play.

What's the benefits?
It means that a player can't sign a contract just to sit in the reserves. Well they can but there is no financial benefit to doing that at Manchester city compared to at Burnley. If the player thinks he'll be sat in Manchester citys reserves for a year then he can't make more money at man city than he can at Burnley. He has to put his football opportunities much higher in his priorities than at present.
It also means that teams like us can compete for players with the top championship teams suddenly because a squad player at the top team may not earn any more than a regular in a bottom of the league team.
Ticket prices can fall because clubs aren't wasting huge sums of money paying players twho never play.
England team benefits because a lot more players are at teams where they are actually playing football instead of doing an holgate at Everton.
And another hugely important benefit is that no clubs should be able to get into financial difficulties because their base wages are so low and if they are struggling for money they simply don't pay their higher bonus players.

It's just an idea which probably has a lot of holes in it

 

Or maximum squad size of say 25.

 

Limit the amount of foreign players in the team. Simple as that.


Sent from my iPhone

 

I don't necessarily think it's the players themselves that are greedy. I believe it's the agents who are greedy, and the clubs themselves are petrified to miss out on the best players, so they allow themselves to be pressured into offering big money to stop them going elsewhere. The players are just doing what we all would if we found ourselves in that situation.

Our team from last season could break up because of the exposure we got and interest in the players from clubs with more money with us. The rumours about Ashley Fletcher, if true, would appear to confirm this.

One notable exception to the above would appear to be the great Adam Hammill, of course.

 

Doesn't solve my of the issues listed above

 

But that's my point. Players ARE greedy if they put instant big money above long term career success which they constantly are doing. And dont forget it is the players who appoint an agent, not the other way round.

 

One of the main problems with post Thatcher Britain is greedy, me first people full stop..

 

I'd love to see what the PFA would make of that.

Still, it would have helped us out with Ryry as we wouldn't have had to pay him yet! We'd save a fortune.

 

We would have saved a fortune on injury prone digby too

 

True, I dare say he's on a bit less though and has not been injured for 99.9% of his Barnsley "career".

 

No it's bout 98% I reckon

 

Maths not your strong point ST?

 

Wouldn't we be paying him the same base wage as everyone else?

 

We wouldn't be paying any extra though would we? The original argument was that the base rate would be lower than current wages to encourage players to actually play. As I say, we'd have saved a fortune.

 

I don't think there's many who make a transfer to pocket money & sit on the bench.

I'm sure for example Scott Sinclair backed himself to force his way into Man City's first team.

The problem is then after this where after a season or two & they realise they aren't good enough to get into that team & the offers on the table will be a lot less than they're on & for many it's not just footballing reasons, a lot want to stay in a certain part of the country for family and / or lifestyle reasons.

Obviously money's a factor but I don't think there's many who'll make a move just to sit on the bench & pocket a wage

 

It's not too far off, whether through injury or just not being good enough. He's started 10 games and been subbed on for 11... in 5 years. Let's count that as 21 full games and ignore all cup games/playoff etc. (even though 2 of his appearances were actually non-league). So that's 46 x 5 = 230 games of which he's played 21. He's not featured in 91% of matches (even though the real percentage of matches overall is much lower).

To be fair though he is only 21 unlike Ryan who's a massive 22.

 

Someone already 'encouraged' him to play whilst injured, and probably made his recovery time much longer as a result.

 

Not sure how trying to discredit Paul Digby makes Williams's situation better but fair enough.

For about 23 of the games in that period he was sixteen years old. For 46 of them he was 17. For another 92 he was still a teenager. Not sure how many games you think it's reasonable for someone to play between the ages of 16-19? For the last 23 or so he's been on loan at another club who deemed him good enough to play at a higher level.

In any case, he wasn't signed for a fee to come into the team and make an impact and if at any point he has been injured, he was during his service to the club.

 

They started him once in the league and subbed him on 3 times then sent him back. It's still not a great percentage whichever way you look at it. Just take the last two seasons then since they have been in their twenties, even though Ryan was only here for 2 months of last season he played 10 games for us and Digby has played 12. Still not a massive difference.

 

They are only getting the shares that were earmarked for wages bonuses etc to other bodies within the system.
It doesn't really affect the ordinary fan IMO as we were always gonna get the **** end of the stick choose who shared the money.